Jump to content
The Education Forum

Greg Burnham

Members
  • Posts

    2,253
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Greg Burnham

  1. Hi:

    Other than some fringe types, there is no debate among scientists that the remains of marine organisms formed Earth’s oil deposits.

    Russians & NASA Discredit ‘Fossil Fuel’ Theory: Demise Of Junk CO2 Science

    Last week new NASA photographs proved methane lakes exist on Saturn’s moon, Titan, showing that such hydrocarbons (or so-called ‘fossil fuels’) are seemingly plentiful in our solar system. This startling discovery turns on its head the long-held western belief that petroleum is a limited resource, because it is primarily derived (we had been told) from the fossilized remains of dead dinosaurs and rotted carbon-based vegetation.

    But with that notion now exploded in the article ‘NASA Finds Lakes of Hydrocarbons on Saturn’s Moon, Titan‘ thanks to NASA’s Cassini spacecraft, energy scientists are now compelled to admit that petroleum oil is, in fact, substantially mineral in origin and occuring all through the galaxies.

    Two Years ago it was reported that the Max Planck Institute, Germany have discovered that the Horse Head Nebula galaxy in the Orion constellation contains a vast field of hydrocarbon (see ‘Top German Scientists Discover ‘Fossil Fuel’ in the Stars‘).

    As such, long-held fears about Earth’s shrinking ‘fossil fuel’ reserves may be bogus. These important new cosmological discoveries come coincidentally at a time when huge succeses in American oil drilling technology (‘frakking‘) are bringing a glut of oil onto the energy markets, causing a slide in global oil prices. Fresh oil reserves are being struck all over – some miles beneath the oceans, where Dino the dinosaur never roamed.

    As we reported (November 08, 2014) NASA’s new evidence supports previously controversial Russian claims that ‘fossil’ fuel theory is junk science. No wonder skepticism of the wide-ranging Green Agenda grows and serious doubts are rising as to whether humans need to divest themselves of the supposedly fast-diminishing energy source after all.

    Bodies of credible, independent western scientists, collaborating and collating their findings via the internet through fledgling organisations such as Principia Scientific International are calling for a re-assessment of over 2,000 eastern European peer-reviewed science papers on the issue, previously ignored by western governments, state-funded universities and the mainstream media.

    For decades Russian scientists have known that the fossil fuel theory is bogus and have compellingly demonstrated that petroleum is derived from highly compressed mineral deposits deep beneath the surface. But the most startling consequence to these findings is that oil is a constant renewable regenerating in nature.

    Since the Middle East oil crisis of the 1970’s gasoline suppliers have stoked media fears that our planet’s reserves are fast in decline. The term ‘peak oil’ was coined and we were told ‘fossil fuels’ would have to become increasingly more expensive as our insatiable appetite drank this ‘finite’ liquid energy source dry. Are we talking conspiracy theory or well-intentioned, but misguided group think that limits to our industrial expansion were essential if we were to tackle ‘peak oil’ and fears over man-made global warming (which has been stalled for a generation).

    Let’s be in no doubt, the emergence of group think about our ‘carbon footprint’ (dare we call it, propaganda) suited the long-term interests of the oil industry and western governments. ‘Big Oil’ has benefited from being told by academics that their resource was precious and limited (putting upward pressure on prices). Tax-raising governments are being increasingly taken to task for encouraging (through generous research grants) sympathetic academics to get on board to build a consensus on these inter-related but evidentially weak scientific theories.

    Repositioning Theory as Fact

    For decades the terms ‘peak oil’ and ‘fossil fuels’ have been synonymous. They imply we are inexorably faced with diminishing natural resources and the days of cheap carbon-based energy are gone. Supplanted in the public consciousness as real we grew to accept the inevitable coming of ever-higher energy prices as a consequence of our energy-reliant, consumer lifestyle.

    Journalists gleaned their own ‘evidence’ for such an apocalyptic narrative from bleak books such as James Howard Kunstler’s ‘The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of Oil, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century’ and Richard Heinberg’s ‘The Party’s Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies’ among others and the public were sold on the fears.

    Constantly fed a diet of this garbage our collective unconsciousness unwittingly allowed the repositioning of Hubbert’s Theory of Peak Oil into fossil fuel fact.

    As a consequence, in 2005, Congressional Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett, Republican of Maryland, and Senator Tom Udall, a New Mexico Democrat created the Congressional Peak Oil Caucus and at a stroke turned attention to debunking such ‘limits to growth’ fallacies.

    Scientists who dissented from the (peer-reviewed) groupspeak were vilified or ignored. In the 1980’s distinguished British scientist, Sir Fred Hoyle FRS was one who tried and failed to expose the chicanery of proponents of the fossil fuel theory and diminishing world oil reserves. Hoyle, without the benefit of the worldwide web tried repeatedly to expose this flimflam, “The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time.”

    The English professor valiantly argued that oil is abiogenic (i.e. from mineral deposition) and cannot be a biotic (from fossils). Yet despite his eminent stature Hoyle’s sage insight gained him no media platform.

    Along with Hoyle other western scientists refused to toe the politically correct line as evidenced in an increasing number of articles to redress the balance about petroleum economics. While several papers by Professor Michael C. Lynch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also exposed the myth of “oil exhaustion” and demonstrating the high-pressure genesis of petroleum. No media voice for them either.

    Russia Becomes World Energy Superpower

    Only in Russia, a nation that since the 1990’s and fall of the Berlin Wall, has eschewed military supremacy to become a global economic superpower, did Hoyle’s and Lynch’s words find a welcome community of likeminded scientists. Indeed, outside of the English-speaking world there is no controversy and its common parlance that oil is a mineral, not a biological product and as such our planet has endless untapped reserves.

    As a consequence of applying this knowledge Russia has gone from strength to strength astutely capitalising on its ‘liquid gold’ reserves. “I would describe the mindset right now among the Russian political elite as infused with ‘petroconfidence’,” So says Cliff Kupchan of the Eurasia Group, in an interview with the BBC.

    Indeed, between 1951-2001, thousands of articles and many books and monographs were published mainly in the mainstream Russian scientific journals proving abiotic petroleum origins – all ignored by western governments and media. For example, leading expert V. A. Krayushkin has alone published more than two hundred fifty articles on modern petroleum geology, and several books.

    Russian mineralogists, oil explorers and each successive government since the dark days of the former Soviet Union have been unalterably upbeat that they’ve ousted the ‘peak oil, fossil fuels’ nonsense. And who are we to argue – they’ve got the money in the bank to prove it.

    As a result Russia is firmly ensconced as the world’s second-largest oil exporter and is becoming so preeminent in the field of oil and gas exploration and innovation that the nation is set to usurp the U.S. not as a military force, but as the world’s energy superpower for the 21st century.

    Oil – Our Greatest Natural Renewable Energy Source

    Exploiting their cutting-edge technology Russia has successfully discovered numerous petroleum fields, a number of which produce either partly or entirely from a crystalline basement and which appears distinctly self-replenishing. Yes, you read that right – Russia enjoys the best naturally renewable energy source – petroleum! No billions wasted on wind farms, solar or wave white elephants here.

    Indeed, to our former soviet cousins, the idea of ‘peak oil’ is laughable because, if they’re calculations are right, oil is the most bountiful, most efficient and cheapest renewable fuel and will last at least for many hundreds of years to come.

    Disgruntled that the Russians have been allowed to take such a big lead the brightest and the best in the west are now using the blogosphere in helping to forge resurgence against the fossil fuel, peak oil myth. So says Daniel Yergin, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of “The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power” and chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a company that advises governments and industry.

    Yergin like others cites the compelling evidence that the MSM won’t show you; these anti-fossil fuel theorists cite alkanes, kerogen and many other petroleum related chemicals that have been found on meteorites – which we know can support no organic life and thus proving the lie of the fossil fuel theory.

    Why are We Still Being Lied to?

    Indeed, so lame has the fossil fuel theory become that even its most strident supporters are unable to muster the flimsiest of evidence for their position. In “The Abiotic Oil Controversy” key proponent of the abiotic (fossil) origin, Richard Heinberg admits his case is exposed as threadbare lamenting, “Perhaps one day there will be general agreement that at least some oil is indeed abiotic. Maybe there are indeed deep methane belts twenty miles below the Earth’s surface.”

    So scant is the evidence to support Heinberg and other western pro-fossil fuel theorists that in researching his article ‘The Evidence for Limitless Oil and Gas’ (Digital Journal), Bill Jencks reveals, I searched the internet including Google Scholar and there seems to be no ‘absolute proof’ or support from direct modern research for the Biogenic Theory of oil and gas formation. This theory — for want of a better word — seems to be greatly ‘assumed’ by geologists throughout geological research.”

    Like me, Jencks found a mountain of evidence backing Russian claims. From the Joint Institute of the Physics of the Earth Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow we find incredible sources as revealed by A Dissertation by J.F. Kenney which condemns the outmoded 18th century “anarchaic hypothesis” that petroleum somehow (miraculously) evolved from biological detritus, and is accordingly limited in abundance.

    Instead, the fossil fuels hypothesis has been replaced during the past forty years by the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins which has established that petroleum is a primordial material erupted from great depth. Kenney states, “Therefore, petroleum abundances are limited by little more than the quantities of its constituents as were incorporated into the Earth at the time of its formation; and its availability depends upon technological development and exploration competence.”

    In a straight scientific shootout Peak Oil Theory vs Russian-Ukraine Modern Theory the Russians win hands down. But it remains a peculiar anachronism that there is no body of American or other English language peer review to verify or disprove the Russian science.

    But why are we still being lied to? With such unwillingness to correct these intellectual failings it is little wonder that there is growing dissatisfaction among voters and thinkers in English-speaking nations and the EU. Those who study carefully the facts now reasonably conclude that beyond the media hard sell there is no energy crisis; the world has a plentiful supply of cheap renewable petroleum and another enviro-myth needs to be mercilessly culled.

    References:

    Kudryavtsev N.A., 1959. Geological proof of the deep origin of Petroleum. Trudy Vsesoyuz. Neftyan. Nauch. Issledovatel Geologoraz Vedoch. Inst.No.132, pp. 242-262 (In Russian)

    Kudryavtsev N.A., 1951. Against the organic hypothesis of oil origin. Oil Economy Jour. [Neftyanoe khoziaystvo], no. 9. – pp. 17-29 (in Russian)

  2. Why the refusal to address the many, many RED items within the article irrespective of the authorship? The identity of the author is not nearly as important as what was written. To claim otherwise is a fallacy. Additionally, that you have not even attempted to address the items in Dr. Chesser's addendum is almost beyond belief.

    Also, Cyril used specific words, such as, outstanding and marvelous in his very complimentary review. Those are very straightforward adjectives. He also used another specific word, namely: satire.

    The definition of satire is:

    sat·ire

    ˈsaˌtī(ə)r/
    noun
    1. the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
      synonyms:

      mockery, ridicule, derision, scorn, caricature

  3. The anonymous Quixote essay was previewed by several informed individuals, all of whom knew the author's true identity. One such individual is Dr. Cyril Wecht, who is perhaps the most renowned forensic pathologist in the world. This morning I received an email from him allowing me to post his succinct review.

    Here is Dr. Wecht's review:
    "Your “Sorrowful Knight” article is outstanding. A marvelous satire of forensic scientific/medical investigation."--Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D.
    Cyril-Wecht.jpg
  4. Greg, I recently came across a website (I forgot which one) where there was an article about conspiracy and the JFK case. A commenter by the name of Russo said something to the affect of "CT-ers don't know what they're talking about." Below it you wrote a rebuttal to this person saying, in effect, "Likewise, LN-ers don't know what they're talking about, neither." I applaud you for that because it's those people who really are too stupid, too blind, or a little bit of both (or even paid shills) to see the full truth of JFK's murder.

    I have never written such a thing anywhere. At least not in the context provided.

    Now, back on track.

  5. PANZA: The temple wound is the one that caused the head snap.

    CERVANTES: No one in Dealey Plaza reported such a head snap—unless, of course, they happened first to see an altered Z-film.[35] And what about Rather[36] and DeLoach,[37] who both reported that JFK actually went forward (on that early version of the Z-film)? You might also check out Finck’s comments on viewing the Z-film.[38] And did you read Altgens’s similar comments about this?[39]

    Greg,

    Are you saying that there was no "back-and-to-the-left" head snap? That the edited Z film just makes it appear there was?

    Yes.

    Interesting.

    Do you disagree with any other evidence of a shot from the front?

    The question you pose is overly broad and cannot be answered adequately in a thread dedicated to the MEDICAL evidence.

  6. Wade Frazier said:

    The Climategate stuff is mostly a lot of ado about nothing.

    I am not saying that the problem is necessarily with a claim being made (anthropomorphic global warming / climate change) that is untrue. I am saying there is a problem with the methodology used to arrive at such conclusions. That methodology is reflected in the emails that were never supposed to see the light of day outside the tight circle of agenda driven scientists.

    I suggest that anyone who is interested in this very important topic, review the emails that were sent between these scientists. Then judge for yourself if what they describe more closely conforms with the scientific method or with The Church of Climatology.

  7. PANZA: The temple wound is the one that caused the head snap.

    CERVANTES: No one in Dealey Plaza reported such a head snap—unless, of course, they happened first to see an altered Z-film.[35] And what about Rather[36] and DeLoach,[37] who both reported that JFK actually went forward (on that early version of the Z-film)? You might also check out Finck’s comments on viewing the Z-film.[38] And did you read Altgens’s similar comments about this?[39]

    Greg,

    Are you saying that there was no "back-and-to-the-left" head snap? That the edited Z film just makes it appear there was?

    Yes.

  8. 2) If the Harper fragment is occipital bone, how is it that it doesn't have on its interior surface the ridges and grooves characteristic of occipital bone, as Pat pointed out on a photo he posted earlier? What do Drs. Mantik and Chesser have to say about that? [emphasis added]

    Stay tuned...more to come.

    Note: Speer did not post a "photo" of the occipital interior surface. Rather, it appears to be an artist's rendering.

    It's called an anatomy drawing, Greg.

    Artists rendition--anatomical drawing--whatever you choose to call it is irrelevant for the sake of this point. The point is that it is not a "photo" as Sandy mistakenly referred to it.

  9. While I disagree with Pat Speer regarding the location of the skull exit wound, I would like to know the following:

    1) How was it that the Harper fragment ended up 100 ft. forward of Kennedy at Z frame 313?

    2) If the Harper fragment is occipital bone, how is it that it doesn't have on its interior surface the ridges and grooves characteristic of occipital bone, as Pat pointed out on a photo he posted earlier? What do Drs. Mantik and Chesser have to say about that?

    Stay tuned...more to come.

    Note: Speer did not post a "photo" of the occipital interior surface. Rather, it appears to be an artist's rendering.

  10. From Dr. Michael Chesser:

    My review of the x-rays and the scalp retraction photograph leads me to the following conclusions:

    1. There is a dark area on the AP x-ray, inferior to the left lambdoid suture, with sharp demarcation, which can only be explained by missing occipital bone. This skull defect extends to the left of midline in the upper portion of the occipital bone, and has an outline which is consistent with the Harper fragment.
    2. I could not see the right lambdoid suture on the AP x-ray, and this indicates bone loss at least involving the right occipital-parietal junction.
    3. The AP x-ray also reveals a dark area inferior and lateral to the orbit on the right side, compared with the left, indicating loss of bone/brain substance in the temporal and occipital region.
    4. On the lateral x-ray the lower occipital skull appears disrupted, with jagged fragments. Dr. Mantik's OD data confirm missing bone in various regions of the occipital bone.
    5. I agree with Dr. Mantik's placement of the Harper fragment. If the three Dallas pathologists were living I would ask them about the features which were visible on the bone fragment which led them to this conclusion. They were looking at a portion of the skull of the President, and I don't believe that they came to a hasty conclusion, and they must have seen clear features which localized to the occipital bone. The central occipital skull defect seen on the scalp retraction photograph, and the outline of the dark area on the AP x-ray both point toward the Harper fragment's localization to this area.
    6. I believe that the central (extending to the left) occipital skull defect is separate from the exit wound identified by the Parkland and Bethesda personnel. The right occipital wound was described as missing overlying scalp and meninges. I think that the area of the Harper fragment was most likely an area in which there was an overlying flap of scalp. It is also possible that these defects were partially contiguous, with the region of the Harper fragment covered by the scalp.
    ==================================
  11. Greg, I just did a quick search on your site regarding Mansfield, am I overlooking it, or you really had no earthly idea the part in which he played in the scale back and withdraw in the Vietnam war.

    Scott,

    You have demonstrated a lack of willingness to expand your view of the world even when you encounter new (to you) evidence. You appear to make your mind up first and then ignore any evidence that tends to refute it. Mansfield was not JFK's chief military advisor...not by a long shot. Did he have influence? Yes. Was he instrumental? Probably. Was he integral to this decision making process? No.

  12. Scott,

    Don't talk about silly wagers. If you have something which proves Greg wrong then provide it so everyone can read it and make up their own minds.

    If Greg is making an unsupported claim, ask him to provide the evidence to support the claim. Once again, readers can make up their own minds.

    I've already done this. The "original" story about Galbraith going to Vietnam in 1961 came from James K. Galbraith himself. At that time Kennedy was already dealing with the Bay of Pigs. He, (Kennedy) DID NOT INVOLVE himself as much in the Vietnam war as he did with Cuba in 1961.

    It was during this year of 1961 the administration was also sending "millions" of dollars to president Diem, had Kennedy sent Galbraith to Vietnam why then is there no mentioned of that in the minutes? Secondly, if Galbraith [had] gone to Vietnam, why then did he not report what Mansfield obviously saw what president Diem was doing with the money the United States was giving them?

    Just because of a few books that contradict themselves, don't know whether Galbraith is coming or going never left India. He did "observe" the war from afar, and wrote Kennedy how he felt about the war, that's it, that's as far as it went. History has this all wrong, after Kennedy received Galbraith's "letter" it was still a few months before Kennedy sent Mansfield to Vietnam to find out what's going on, surely, the president wouldn't need a second opinion about money being squandered in Vietnam would he?

    In closing, if you Mr. Burton read my number #48 post to Mrs. Beckett you would have [understood what I said to her, which should have helped in making up your mind,] with that I said, I did say, "it wouldn't happen again", your follow up posts only tells me that one, you read my post but didn't understand it, or two, you read my post, understood it, but, couldn't make up your mind. Which is it Mr. Burton?

    Introduction to NSAM 263 [JFK's Vietnam Withdrawal Policy]

    Introduction to NSAM 273 [LBJ's Reversal of NSAM 263]

    Greg, you really have a pretty sight, I bet you've spent a lot of time working on it, and thanks for backing up the NSAM withdraw policy I was discussing in post #57 which was based off Senator Mansfield's report.

    It was not based off Senator Mansfield's report at all!

    It was officially the result of the McNamara / Taylor Trip Report. [Yes, that is Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Maxwell Taylor].

    NSAM 263 even INCLUDES the precise section of their report--as the ONLY portion--that was approved by the president and which recommended the withdrawal of 1,000 personnel by the end of 1963 and all remaining personnel by the end of 1965!

    JFK was never--I repeat NEVER--in favor of American intervention in Indochina. Going back to his days in the House of Representatives and later to his days in the Senate, JFK consistently and vocally opposed American involvement in Vietnam. He gave an impassioned speech to the US Senate to that effect way back in 1954; a speech that described his position unequivocally.

    On September 6th of 1963 he tasked Foreign Service Officer Mendenhall and General Victor "Brute" Krulak to go on a fact finding tour of Vietnam and make their recommendation. They came to nearly opposite conclusions, with Mendenhall advising that the war effort was failing and Krulak insisting that the war effort, particularly the strength of the anti-Communist forces, was going well--so well, in fact, that Krulak advised that our withdrawal would have a positive effect on the GOV of SVN.

    JFK had made his mind up BEFORE he took office that extricating the US from Vietnam (without appearing to be soft on communism) was essential. That is why he disregarded Mendenhall's recommendation and embraced Krulak's instead. Such an approach would have allowed him to "claim victory" and bring our boys home had he lived. After he decided on complete withdrawal by the end of 1965, JFK knew that he would need the "recommendation to withdraw" to appear to have its genesis in the top ranking US military establishment or else he would look soft on communism. Thus he had Krulak and Prouty write the content of the subsequent "McNamara / Taylor Trip Report." It was THAT report that "officially" contained the "military's own recommendation" to withdraw.

    Please read this JFK speech (mentioned above) and decide for yourself if he was firmly committed to keeping the US out of a ground war in Asia.

  13. Scott,

    Don't talk about silly wagers. If you have something which proves Greg wrong then provide it so everyone can read it and make up their own minds.

    If Greg is making an unsupported claim, ask him to provide the evidence to support the claim. Once again, readers can make up their own minds.

    I've already done this. The "original" story about Galbraith going to Vietnam in 1961 came from James K. Galbraith himself. At that time Kennedy was already dealing with the Bay of Pigs. He, (Kennedy) DID NOT INVOLVE himself as much in the Vietnam war as he did with Cuba in 1961.

    It was during this year of 1961 the administration was also sending "millions" of dollars to president Diem, had Kennedy sent Galbraith to Vietnam why then is there no mentioned of that in the minutes? Secondly, if Galbraith [had] gone to Vietnam, why then did he not report what Mansfield obviously saw what president Diem was doing with the money the United States was giving them?

    Just because of a few books that contradict themselves, don't know whether Galbraith is coming or going never left India. He did "observe" the war from afar, and wrote Kennedy how he felt about the war, that's it, that's as far as it went. History has this all wrong, after Kennedy received Galbraith's "letter" it was still a few months before Kennedy sent Mansfield to Vietnam to find out what's going on, surely, the president wouldn't need a second opinion about money being squandered in Vietnam would he?

    In closing, if you Mr. Burton read my number #48 post to Mrs. Beckett you would have [understood what I said to her, which should have helped in making up your mind,] with that I said, I did say, "it wouldn't happen again", your follow up posts only tells me that one, you read my post but didn't understand it, or two, you read my post, understood it, but, couldn't make up your mind. Which is it Mr. Burton?

    Introduction to NSAM 263 [JFK's Vietnam Withdrawal Policy]

    Introduction to NSAM 273 [LBJ's Reversal of NSAM 263]

×
×
  • Create New...