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.

 

Gulf Oil Spill Hoax Argument VINDICATED

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


I drive a volvo and I am not a libby.
Since this thread is about the gulf oil
spill.I just had my OIL changed yesterday




posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


Unfourtunatly for me they are nearly indestructable as far as the engines go. Changed the oil on one today that had 224,000 miles. Had to use an umbrella to do so as to not get a bath from the oil leak though



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by justadood
When you think you 'know' something is probably when you are the furthest from the truth.

The greatest wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing — Socrates

Which means we have masses of "wise" people here on ATS.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
**** WARNING ****

GET ON TOPIC AND STOP DISCUSSING EACH OTHER.

STOP THE RUDE AND SNIDE COMMENTS

YOU WILL BE POST BANNED,



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by justadood
When you think you 'know' something is probably when you are the furthest from the truth.

The greatest wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing — Socrates

Which means we have masses of "wise" people here on ATS.

— Doc Velocity


Not at all. Re-read the quote you provided. There is a difference between knowing you know nothing, and thinking you know everything.

You have already admitted to thinking you 'know', (based on what, still isnt clear, beyond pre-determined assumptions) which is certainly the anti-thesis of learning, since it implies that all searching for evidence and aggressive questioning are done.

If you think you 'know' and have no desire to base your knowledge on fact (you know, the things you have omitted), then, by your own definition, you dont know anything.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I think a lot of people are jumping the gun here. We don't have ALL of the facts. We may never have all of the facts. Yes, there have been frauds and a lot of fear mongering from outside sources. There have also been some very good documentation of the results of the oil damage. And we still don't know how much damage has been caused from the corexit.

The thing to remember is we are all searching for the truth and name calling doesn't get us any closer.

edit for dyslexia

[edit on 7/29/2010 by darkelf]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by eightfold
Also, I don't think it's reasonable for you to expect me (or anyone else) to trawl through your posts in other threads, it's akin to me angrily pointing to my diary every time someone asks me a question about a conversation I've just started.

Well, for one thing, I'm not angry; the enviro-trolls may be seething in their pants, but I'm not. For another, I doubt that your diary is substantiated by the National Research Council on the one hand and by a growing list of MSM outlets on the other.

As for expecting people to be knowledgeable of my position and the facts of the subject before assailing me is not asking too much — still, because I am a responsible person, I did answer your questions "and much more," essentially repeating myself for the fifth or sixth time. I'm losing count.


— Doc Velocity



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   


Well, for one thing, I'm not angry; the enviro-trolls may be seething in their pants, but I'm not.

— Doc Velocity


Well, after reading every post you made in this thread, I would say you certainly appear to be quite seething.

Perhaps you are projecting your own attitude and perspective onto others?

[edit on 29-7-2010 by justadood]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Just Wondering
I'll just leave this here...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



There's more than meet the eye


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Who's right? Who's wrong? Futile argument.

For the sake of what the truth IS, please put all that energy into moving forward.
If this is true, what about your children, their future health?
If you debunk this, give us more than your puffy chests and fighting words.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I think your jumping the gun a little bit. First of all all the corexit that was sprayed has sunk most of the oil down in the water. Secondly no one can get close enough to it to report on it anyway. And who believes anything that msm says anyway.I think this is a long way from over,and a lot has been hid from the public about it. So will see.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by justadood
Well, after reading every post you made in this thread, I would say you certainly appear to be quite seething. Perhaps you are projecting your own attitude and perspective onto others?

Believe me, Dood, if I was seething, you'd know it. The ground trembles when I'm angry. This thread is just business-as-usual for your gentle Doc Velocity, who has endured all sorts of frothing assault for my environmental views for years.

This thread is a walk in the park for me.

— Doc Velocity




[edit on 7/29/2010 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


"Vindicated" Lol.

You dismiss the 'MSM" as a bunch of frothing 'enviro-tards' but base you entire thesis on the info PRESENTED by the MSM.


so.... you still think there is no oil and its all gone?

What about the millions of gallons suspended under the surface?

I notice that numerous people have brought this up, and you have yet to address it.

why is that?


[edit on 29-7-2010 by justadood]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by justadood
Dude, there are more holes in your 'theory' than,... um,... than... a poorly-constructed story that ignores numerous facts.

Ah... "A poorly-constructed story that ignores numerous facts."

EXACTLY

That's been my precise characterization of the Deepwater Horizon "environmental catastrophe" — which has yet to manifest and probably will never manifest. All you see in the numerous and hysterical envirotard stories are the repeated phrases "possible disaster" and "unknown damage" to the marine ecosystem.

What in the hell is scientific about "possible disaster" and "unknown damage"?? It says to me that there is no scientific foundation for the doomsaying.

And there's not, apparently.

— Doc Velocity





[edit on 7/29/2010 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Doc V, I tend to get engaged when I read your posts. I also lean towards agreeing with you more times than not.

However, in this instance, I would have to stand against your OP. First of all, you based it on a Time/CNN story. Everyone here knows that the MSM cannot always be trusted to post the truth when there are agendas afoot.
Scientists are not yet that trustworthy either. Just like with GW, half are on the corporate payroll, while the others are on their own. Both sides are promoting too many differences to know what is actually truth for the near and far future.

I will admit to diving into this subject with a little more zeal than I wish I had done in the beginning, I have come to realize that this is not the exstinction level event it was portryed to be. However, it is still a very bad situation that has negatively affected thousands of lives in many ways and will not be normalized for a very long time.

I do know from personal accounts that they have infact put so many restrictions on the fishing industry in the area that they have destroyed many businesses and family lives.
I know from personal accounts that before the cap was put on and they were supposed to be using those idle fishing vessels to skim oil, they only did so for 1.5 hours per day, 6 days a week. The only exception was when a government official (potus, vp, governor, lt gov, etc) were scheduled to come down, or on those rare occasions when they wanted to allow a few fly over photos to be taken to sway the public interest.
I know from personal accounts that there is in fact oil in the sand that was not there last summer and that the water has a foul odor and texture.

The above are facts that I did not learn on the internet or from the MSM. Those are from the accounts of the people that are there and worried about their immediate futures and cursing BP and the US Govt for this incident.

I do know about the algae that eats and degrades oil. It thrives in very deep waters and off the oil that constantly trickles up from the seabed around the world. It is an evolution of nature. A part of the anitbiotic system of nature.

Considering one more fact, there was a manmade rupture that caused oil to leak into the body of water more rapidly and at a higher volume that it would normally seep. I know we can agree on that much at least.

One study (that still needs to be clarified before being taken as absolute truth) is on this algae. While its consumption of the oil is ongoing and its affect on reducing the amount in the water is evident, this study is trying to determine if it is in fact killing off all of the algae due to the extreme amount of oil in the area. When these algae die, they consume oxygen from the water. The levels were studied after the Exxon spill and are being studied here.
If the constantly dying algae continue to consume the oxygen from the waters, then there is a fallout problem that will cost the lives of every water breathing creature in the affected area.

The collateral damage from this will continue long after the main damage is a memory.

Adding those together, and if they all point true, then the outrage over this event is very much justified.

I would love to be wrong.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by justadood
Dude, there are more holes in your 'theory' than,... um,... than... a poorly-constructed story that ignores numerous facts.

Ah... "A poorly-constructed story that ignores numerous facts."

EXACTLY

That's been my precise characterization of the Deepwater Horizon "environmental catastrophe" — which has yet to manifest and probably will never manifest. All you see in the numerous and hysterical envirotard stories are the repeated phrases "possible disaster" and "unknown damage" to the marine ecosystem.

What in the hell is scientific about "possible disaster" and "unknown damage"?? It says to me that there is no scientific foundation for the doomsaying.

And there's not, apparently.

— Doc Velocity





[edit on 7/29/2010 by Doc Velocity]


So now you are no longer claiming that everything is fine and all the oil is gone?

That was a quick 180.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by justadood
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


"Vindicated" Lol. You dismiss the 'MSM" as a bunch of frothing 'enviro-tards' but base you entire thesis on the info PRESENTED by the MSM.

Again, Dood, I haven't "based my entire thesis" on the MSM. I've been writing on this subject, largely assailing the Mainstream Media, since May 3, 2010.

I have used my personal observations of Gulf Oil spillage, I have used NASA photographs, I have used the National Research Council report on background oil pollution. I have used a LOT of evidence establishing my position for months.

Don't think that because you just read this one thread that you've seen my "entire thesis." You haven't.

As for vindication, I would say — I DO say — that when the MSM has pursued this "environmental catastrophe" full-bore for most of the summer, blowing it ALL out of proportion, but THEN turns around in just the last few days and starts questioning its own faulty reportage, then YES, I call it vindication of my very unpopular argument.

What would you call it?

— Doc Velocity





[edit on 7/29/2010 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by wheresthetruth
 


That is my problem with his theory, as well. He claims the MSM are 'enviro-tards' who blow the story out of proportion, but then he relies on the MSM to uphold his own theory that there is no oil.

Its a glaring contradiction.

I agree that many on here are doomsayers lacking science, but arguing against them is not the same thing as your OP which claims that the oil is all gone..



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by justadood
So now you are no longer claiming that everything is fine and all the oil is gone? That was a quick 180.

Dood, before you accuse me of pulling a 180, you need to be telling the truth first. Now, WHERE did I say — EVER — that "everything is fine and all the oil is gone"?

Show me where I said that.

Because, if you can't quote me correctly, if you're going to try to put words in my mouth, as these other lunkheads have done for months, then you're no better than they are, right?

I mean, if you're going to say I pulled a 180, you need to show me HOW I pulled a 180, and you need to prove it.

If you can't... Then keep your 180s to yourself. Okay?


— Doc Velocity




top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join