The first misconception by "Forebiddenknowledge" is that the blowout must involve asphalt, not crude oil, because asphalt, in the form of tar balls, is washing up on beaches. But spilled crude quickly evaporates and leaves behind its heavy fraction, and voilà, you have asphalt. This always happens when crude oil is spilled in the sea.
The second misconception by "Forebiddenknowledge" is that asphalt volcanoes are good sources of oil. They aren't. There is no reason that an oil company would drill into one. The stuff coming up there is lousy, degraded petroleum—asphalt. No, the fact that the blowout is full of gas as well as oil shows that the reservoir has been well sealed.
But why worry about facts when they just get in the way of a good conspiracy?
The second example is from the "twelfthbough" blog, whose author seized upon the superficial resemblance of the oil-spewing wellhead to the familiar black smokers of the midocean spreading ridges. I'm not sure how he gets from there to the Jesuits, but he does. Never mind that the Gulf of Mexico has no spreading centers and no basalt seafloor. The Gulf is full of cold seeps, not black smokers. It really pays to learn about some basic facts.
More:
Asphalt volcanism
Basics of petroleum
Black smokers and cold seeps
Comments
hello this is A. Peasant from twelfthbough. yes there is a superficial resemblance of the oil-spewing wellhead to the black smokers.
superficial resemblances have been used before to mislead people about what is happening / has happened, as in 9/11 for instance, with the complicity of people in the sciences (NIST) and of course the media. there is a pattern of deception. that’s the point.
i was very clear in my post that this is a theory making the rounds. as i wrote in my post, these smokers “could offer an alternative explanation for what we’re looking at.” but even if they don’t, Mr. Alden, it does not follow that we have been told the truth about what is happening. you are awfully quick to dismiss when very clearly, access to all sorts of evidence about this spill is strenuously controlled.
in fact you appear to miss the whole point by writing:
“There is no reason that an oil company would drill into one.” (asphalt volcano)
but there IS a reason to use deception if the real (unstated) goal is to pollute the environment with Corexit, which is more toxic than the oil. many things are done to justify doing other things. that is called the Hegelian Dialectic, where a problem is created so that the preferred solution can then be offered.
the primary solution to this spill has been secrecy, bumbling stupidity (also known as “human error”), and lots and lots of Corexit — poison.
so what is the explanation for using massive quantities of this highly toxic chemical when other solutions were available from day one?
and why would they intentionally pollute the environment?
“I’m not sure how he gets from there to the Jesuits, but he does.”
there ARE reasons why some people would want to intentionally pollute the environment. there is an extensive body of knowledge to document a pervasive culture of secrecy and malice among people in power, including false flag terrorist events, for the purposes of transferring wealth and controlling resources.
it appears that you are the one who made no effort to read the post carefully and in context with the videos and links supplied.
regardless, i was very clear in my conclusion:
“Does this prove anything? No. It is what we might consider circumstantial evidence. We see things happening that don’t make sense. But they do make sense. They make sense when you understand the death cult.”
you are the one overstating the case that we bloggers suffer from “mental mayhem” and have “seized” your article as “key evidence of a dark and shifting vision of the Gulf blowout as a staged act.” not quite. both of the posts you reference are quite explicit that we do have proof but are asking questions in light of certain anomalies and patterns of past behavior.
in fact there are many valid, legitimate questions that many people have about this catastrophe, not just the pesky bloggers. there is absolutely nothing wrong with people trying to make sense of the events affecting us all when experts and authorities do nothing but treat us to lies and disdain and accuse of of mental imbalance.
In other words, A Peasant, “I’m just sayin’….”
A theory can’t be supported by implicitly linking a series of facts, even if the facts themselves are true. You refer to your “conclusion” and then in the next sentence admit you can’t prove it. So, it’s not a conclusion, is it? Fantasy, perhaps, but not a conclusion.
Ah… I shouldn’t feed the trolls….
it’s a theory.
no, we do NOT have proof (correction to my statement above) but are asking questions based on in light of certain anomalies and patterns of past behavior.
if you are not willing to look at the anomalies and especially the patterns of past behavior, then of course it will seem ridiculous to you.
the legal system uses circumstantial evidence every day. people are convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
If I may. . .I would like a concrete example of what “anomalies” and “patterns of past behavior” even remotely correlate to this “theory.” I have yet to see anything in your extrapolation, A. Peasant, that would come close to facts as opposed to paranoid inferences. And, no. . .the “faked moon landings in 1969″ have no more relevance than Area 51 or 2012, my friend. Suspicions are nothing when trying to advocate a theory, regardless of how reasonable you believe they seem. Have you got any materials, references, publications by reputable experts that would give this theory credence? If so, please direct us in that direction. I, for one, would be delighted to see a shred of evidence.
After reading Twelfth Boughs blog, it reminded me to this :
http://www.sjgames.com/inwo/humor/
Hello Peasant, thanks for coming by. You have a lot of good and true things to say (which I’ll get to in a second), but it’s fair for me to point out a simple error that undermines your thesis from the start, namely that black smokers have nothing to do with the blowout. My overall point is people are really upset and are checking their brains at the door in their rush to believe the worst or to disbelieve conventional wisdom. I think you’ll agree.
This is worth pointing out because scientists are also trained skeptics, but they’re also trained not to fall into belief the way people fall in love. (Not that their training is foolproof, but it’s the best we can do as human beings.) And circumstantial evidence is not scientific evidence, moreover it’s second-rate legal evidence, to be accepted only when there’s nothing better. Scientists will not join you in storming the Vatican until the evidence is more convincing.
Now let me say what you have right: Lots of conventional wisdom is indeed just a convention. The parties we’re relying on for data about the BP blowout do have their own agendas. Suspicion is a good thing, and an eager readiness to tell ourselves that things are really OK is risky–cutting to the middle is not automatically wise. And there are groups of people working in secret against the public interest.
We all have our own recipes for cooking up explanations–some like a dash of stupidity and a big dose of malice while others prefer the opposite. That’s where you and I stand. The world sorts things out in its own way.
my post at twelfth bough commented on the theory at forbidden knowledge and added some context with the Jesuits. i said nothing about faked moon landings or area 51, mannisue. ??
you could start by reading dave mcgowan, particularly the pedophocracy, which is all sourced to your heart’s content. and it goes from there.
http://www.whale.to/b/mcgowan_h.html
geology guide, agreed about the black smokers. thank you.
I followed the Mercado blowout from the beginning, reading industry forums and gaining information early on about the probable causes. Most of which proved to be correct, i.e., decisions based on time/money, displacing mud in riser with seawater, faulty Blowout preventer (lack of reducing in shear rams), etc.
My point is that the general public gets their information from news sound bites or web sites with an agenda, yes we all have agendas but some are based in facts and some on less that reliable sources. I was told you can have your own ideas but not your own facts.
I was around the oil business in the early 60’s, as a roughneck, and later in the 80’s as a working interest owner, all in the Midwest and relatively shallow wells. I was on the floor when a well blew out in southern Michigan, well was shut in by the BOP and left oil and sand, inches thick all over the location. It is a frightening and fearsome sound and sensation.
What I carried away from all this experience is that drilling is a complex and highly intense activity. To even drill and produce a well with conditions that exist in deepwater GOM locations is an effort of herculean proportions and DOESN’T leave room for a bunch of convoluted chicanery as expressed by Peasant.
Education about processes can liberate from the narrowness of uninformed opinions.