INGO Challenge = Proof

[SavageEagle]

That's an anti-troll feature, sir.

 

[Srtsi4wd]

Ha. I refuted this one with good evidence from geologists I know from the oil patch, here on Ingo months ago. If this is an example of his "investigation" then it was very poorly done.

A single post of hearsay on a public forum is all you have? An "I heard from a guy back in the day" trumps a USGS press release? Oh, ok.
I posted that link because I havent found anything to refute it publically. If you have links to publically available documents please post them, I would like to read them.

As for the snide comment, you obviously did not read my entire post.
My "investigation" took all of 5 minutes to compile. I made no claims as to the validity of any of the links I posted. I put them out there to foster intelligent discussion. Prove every one wrong, I'll be happy to be corrected. However it seems that it is always easier to insult rather than engage.

 

[Srtsi4wd]

I read this one closely. All he does is present evidence that the collapse could have been consciously brought about. That's not the only element he needs to make his case. The more important element, and the one he ignores, is evidence that they did actually engineer it.

I want to see that evidence as well. I would invite you to listen to the podcast link I posted. Dr. Byrne has some very interesting insights into how Wall Street and big banking really works.

I would also invite you to listen to or watch 20/20 Hindsight: Censorship on the Frontline. After examining the claims of Richard Grove I fear that the evidence of financial tampering and manipulation has long since disappeared.

YouTube - 1/9 - Wall Street Whistleblower Proves That Money Never Sleeps - Full Movie, Not Official Trailer

 

[shibumiseeker]

Yes, that captures my frustration perfectly. Is it just me?

Nope, though I suppose I don't expend quite that much energy on it.

SE:

I make fun of people like Beck and Jones not because I agree or disagree with their positions. Point in fact, sometimes I do agree or disagree with them. I make fun of them because they cannot build logical arguments based on verifiable or repeatable facts. ANYONE can use unsupported assertions as evidence of what they are trying to prove, but if I as a scientist were to try to do so I would develop zero credibility in the scientific community.

I would like to challenge YOU, SE, to look up the definition of "demagogue", here's a start: Demagogy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and then try to understand why some of us can't take them seriously.

It has very little to do with disagreeing with their rhetoric and everything to do with their methods. Can you understand that?

As for me, if YOU, SE, want me to show evidence that they are wrong (or right) on any given topic (and I have done so in the past on a couple of them) then YOU are going to have to arrange for me to be paid a similar amount that they get (including marketing and residuals) for doing so. These people make their living by stirring up the passions of the masses. I'd prefer to make my living contributing to the better good of society and educating the masses, not trying to tell the masses what to think.

 

[shibumiseeker]

A single post of hearsay on a public forum is all you have? An "I heard from a guy back in the day" trumps a USGS press release? Oh, ok.

No, actually, if you do a search for the post I made back then, I posted quite a bit more than just some hearsay. Go ahead, search for it. I already did my work in posting it then, you want to discredit me then you come up with the post. Until then you're just blowing smoke and sarcasm. If you think the "snide" comment was made in reference to you, it was not, nor was it particularly snide. I save my snideness for much more special occasions.

 

[EvilleDoug]

This is like walking down the street and two blocks ahead the people are screaming and running toward you yelling "RUN" and you fall in with them, the fear sets in and you have no idea why you're scared. Now, you think you've outran the danger, turn and realize you inadvertently walked into a Godzilla Movie set....

Hypocrisy causes more trouble than just about anything else in existence.

Oh wait, never mind...my tinfoil hat was just on too tight...carry own.

 

[EvilleDoug]

and PS - I forgot which thread this is...never mind again, I didn't mean to post in here....toooooooooo serious

 

[Srtsi4wd]

No, actually, if you do a search for the post I made back then, I posted quite a bit more than just some hearsay. Go ahead, search for it. I already did my work in posting it then, you want to discredit me then you come up with the post. Until then you're just blowing smoke and sarcasm. If you think the "snide" comment was made in reference to you, it was not, nor was it particularly snide. I save my snideness for much more special occasions.

link:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...le_east_countries_combined-2.html#post1089698


Here is your post.

Petrology friends I know have been talking about Bakken for several years now. When I was out in SD a couple of years ago I was talking with a geologist friend who works for one of the drilling companies. The article 360 posted is only partially correct. While the mean estimate of total hydrocarbon in the formation is considerable, current extraction technique only give us a percent or two of that total reserve, so today and in the forseeable future that's 3-4 billion bbl. The entire formation is only a hundred to three hundred feet thick and is a very low porosity shale (a couple %) which mandates horizontal drilling and hydrofracturing of the beds. The figure of $16/bbl extraction costs is off by almost an order of magnitude and I'd love to see the author's "source" for it. Tapping any more than the percent or two our current technology allows is going to be much more expensive, unless of course the magic breakthrough happens. Funny thing about magic breakthroughs, sometimes they happen and we all benefit. But you can't rely on them to happen when you need them...

Heck, I have NG and petroleum reserves under my property, about 1500' down. All I need to do is drill a $80-200/foot well and I can pump probably as much as 5-6 bbl/day from it. I'm working in a rock formation in Kentucky that has keragen in it and is causing us no end of trouble. We could probably extract as much as a bbl of oil per ton of rock, but we'd spend double that energy doing it.


Obtaining energy independence through hydrocarbon resource extraction for the US is no real issue. Between NG, coal, and oil we have plenty, enough for at least a century at current uses (whether we should be using it is a seperate debate). But our infrastructure is not set up for using it, and changing that infrastructure is going to be expensive.

But it's easier to blame the "environmentalist" boogeyman for all of our woes.

Lots of info, very little evidence. Like I said, please provide links to the documentation. I failed to find any in your post. I will be happy to change my position just as soon as I have reason to.

If this is an example of his "investigation" then it was very poorly done.

May I ask who this was in reference too then? It sure sounded to me like you were referencing my post and my efforts to provide LINKS to foment the discussion.

 

[SavageEagle]

Nope, though I suppose I don't expend quite that much energy on it.

SE:

I make fun of people like Beck and Jones not because I agree or disagree with their positions. Point in fact, sometimes I do agree or disagree with them. I make fun of them because they cannot build logical arguments based on verifiable or repeatable facts. ANYONE can use unsupported assertions as evidence of what they are trying to prove, but if I as a scientist were to try to do so I would develop zero credibility in the scientific community.

I would like to challenge YOU, SE, to look up the definition of "demagogue", here's a start: Demagogy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and then try to understand why some of us can't take them seriously.

It has very little to do with disagreeing with their rhetoric and everything to do with their methods. Can you understand that?

As for me, if YOU, SE, want me to show evidence that they are wrong (or right) on any given topic (and I have done so in the past on a couple of them) then YOU are going to have to arrange for me to be paid a similar amount that they get (including marketing and residuals) for doing so. These people make their living by stirring up the passions of the masses. I'd prefer to make my living contributing to the better good of society and educating the masses, not trying to tell the masses what to think.

See, the problem is that Jones and Beck has been right on a LOT of things he says. Just as Columbus was right about the Earth being round, and Galileo about us not being the center of the universe. Yet, people brought up their evidence to say they were wrong. Sure, a lot of people just grazed the pasture together baaaaaahing in unison that they were wrong, but some people actually tried to prove them wrong.

If you can't accept this challenge by at least trying to prove them wrong, for whatever reason, fine. But don't sit here trying to tell everyone that it's stupid because you THINK it's stupid or that I'm stupid for challenging this.

Again, they show evidence of their assertions and a lot of times turn out to be right. I want someone to show evidence that their assertions are wrong. It's not all entertainment if they have a track record for being right.

So please, if you're not going to try this, don't sit here and tell everyone it's stupid just because YOU think so. While MOST members here aren't sheep, you're just wasting your finger energy.

 

[djl02]

It was March of 2001,Alex said on his show that they were gonna fly planes into the World Trade Center. Six months later it happened. That was a wild show looking back at it,being it happened,and who told him it was gonna happen.

 

[techamber]

Fail. Read RULES

From what I read I'm allowed to post links to sites, but not post the words here. If I'm misunderstanding something feel free to inform me rather than simply trying to ridicule me.

WOW!

I just got called a TROLL!

I know full well how to "internet". I'm not looking for people to do my homework for me. I've done my homework. I believe what I believe and what I believe I have clearly stated in the past. However, my beliefs evolve with the discovery of the truth as I go.

So.

To explain my intentions here, AGAIN, I'm challenging people who bash people like Jones and Beck to get out there and actually do their OWN research on what they have to say before they turn on their "BS-autopilot" and dismiss whatever he has to say.

BTW, to .

I fully understand your intentions, it's just that your intentions are completly illogical. You ask people to prove that Alex Jones is a hoax, but there's not even reason to. His evidence is poorly documented and more often than not twisted words and personal conjecture rather than solid proof. In reality, Jones deserves as much of our attention as the crazy homeless people on the sidewalk screaming about the end of days. Sure, they might actually be right, but their entire communication of their reasoning is so terrible that even if you did waste your time listening to them you would end up with an unlikely sounding scenario with little to no solid proof. As for Beck, dismissing him is easy just by watching his show. If you want a prime example just go watch his backtracking of his comments of Obama being racist.

Also, this link you posted... It's a rant. It doesn't explain anything, it doesn't debunk anything, and it's shows absolutely no evidence to anything Alex Jones has said.

And this statement: (Paraphrased) "Jones gives no evidence as to why the UN/NWO wants to take over the world" is non-sense. The reasons have been clearly stated by Jones, Beck, and many, MANY others, many times. Clearly the author of that little rant picks and chooses what he wants to hear without really taking it all in and doing his OWN homework.

Perhaps you would like to delve a bit deeper then. Let's start with one of Jones' bigger works, the Obama deception. In the debunking of The Obama Deception the second listed source is a link to a speech made in Colorado in 2008. This speech is used to put context in two of the quotes used by Alex Jones in The Obama Deception to put forth different the idea that Obama plans on creating a nationalist military state. The quote debunked in between those two sources is another quote taken out of context by Rahm Emanuel (again the interview is sourced). Again it was used to put forth the idea that Obama would make all people between the ages of 18-25 will have to do basic military training since basic training most commonly refers to the military, and therefore the context that the audience will probably take it as. However, the quote was referring to civil programs like the peace corp. This quote was made with no relation to Obama and 2 years before he was appointed Chief of Staff (again sourced).

 

[SavageEagle]

First, you say it's not worth your time and the whole challenge is illogical, but yet you indulge me anyway and debate. Works for me.

From what I read I'm allowed to post links to sites, but not post the words here. If I'm misunderstanding something feel free to inform me rather than simply trying to ridicule me.

Skipping because it's not directed to me.

I fully understand your intentions, it's just that your intentions are completly illogical. You ask people to prove that Alex Jones is a hoax, but there's not even reason to. His evidence is poorly documented and more often than not twisted words and personal conjecture rather than solid proof. In reality, Jones deserves as much of our attention as the crazy homeless people on the sidewalk screaming about the end of days. Sure, they might actually be right, but their entire communication of their reasoning is so terrible that even if you did waste your time listening to them you would end up with an unlikely sounding scenario with little to no solid proof. As for Beck, dismissing him is easy just by watching his show. If you want a prime example just go watch his backtracking of his comments of Obama being racist.

.My intentions are not illogical. Besides, we're not Vulcan. I'm not asking them to prove Jones a Hoax. I'm asking them to prove him WRONG. Big difference. Regardless HOW poorly documented his evidence is, is it so hard to debunk it? Again, I come back to the idea of me saying the Earth is Flat and asking you to prove me wrong.

Jones has made claims. PROVE HIM WRONG. If that's too hard for you to do, bow respectfully from the challenge and don't let it bother you anymore.

Perhaps you would like to delve a bit deeper then. Let's start with one of Jones' bigger works, the Obama deception. In the debunking of The Obama Deception the second listed source is a link to a speech made in Colorado in 2008. This speech is used to put context in two of the quotes used by Alex Jones in The Obama Deception to put forth different the idea that Obama plans on creating a nationalist military state. The quote debunked in between those two sources is another quote taken out of context by Rahm Emanuel (again the interview is sourced). Again it was used to put forth the idea that Obama would make all people between the ages of 18-25 will have to do basic military training since basic training most commonly refers to the military, and therefore the context that the audience will probably take it as. However, the quote was referring to civil programs like the peace corp. This quote was made with no relation to Obama and 2 years before he was appointed Chief of Staff (again sourced).

Hey, if you can't see the "obama deception", your blindness is not my concern here. That's your own problem. He is creating a military state. Look at all he's accomplished so far: obamacare which FORCES you by gun or imprisonment to purchase healthcare insurance or government provided insurance. Not only are you FORCED to purchase insurance, you're FORCED to pay for other people's insurance. A key example of military states all over the globe. Next we have the Stimulus Bills/Bailouts. Again, we're forced to pay to bailout companies and states and individuals alike with no choice in the matter and completely against the Constitutional authority of government.

Next we come to the obamavision in the works. Forced Community Service and a Youth Military-type Service. Then look no farther than NYC where the NATIONAL GUARD helped NYCPD set up and conduct illegal search and seizure. Then let's look at the FORCED vaccination plans that were implemented in many states at the request of the CDC, a federal entity, and the POTUS Admin.

Don't even get me started on the countless federal agencies that are allowed to make up their own rules as they go without Constitutional Authority, or the many victimless laws that are enforced everyday, or the entirety of the Patriot(Tyranny) ACT.

There is my proof of the Police State being instituted by the last 100 years of government, most of which has come from the current Federal Government (Read: All three branches).

Now, to address the last sentence in bold in your quote....

I would like to see those sources, because I can show you videos from the horses arse himself stating that he wanted to form a Civilian Military Corps, not a "Peace Corps".

 

[shibumiseeker]

link:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...le_east_countries_combined-2.html#post1089698


Here is your post.


Lots of info, very little evidence. Like I said, please provide links to the documentation. I failed to find any in your post. I will be happy to change my position just as soon as I have reason to.

Fair enough, I forget sometimes that since I am posting under a username here my credibility as a geologist are no different than anyone else. So, since proof from the web is desired:
A non geologist summary
snopes.com: Bakken Formation

An educated layman more in detail:
The Oil Drum | The Bakken Formation: How Much Will It Help?

Geology Geek
Bakken Shale Formation Oil - North Dakota and Montana - USGS

USGS
USGS Release: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate— (4/10/2008 2:25:36 PM)


Those are just the first page of Google, BTW, and jibe pretty much with what I have read in the journals* over the years.

Anyone who is really interested in the topic (maybe one other person out there in Ingoland) can dig a little more (geologist joke) in the journal "Geology" at Geology

But, see, the reason I have a hard time taking SE's "challenge" seriously is because I could post all of this all day long and people like that will still say that Alex Jones or Glenn Beck are a more credible source simply because they are public figures. As someone who is extremely widely known and respected in my field of expertise, and who hobnobs with some of the most respected people in scientific fields related to my area of expertise, I have a very difficult time taking seriously an entertainer who does not exhibit the level of rigor in his research that I expect from my peer group.



*As a sidenote, because not everyone knows the difference between a journal and a magazine, a journal is a peer-reviewed publication of a science or industry. There are many times more journals than there are magazines, but the circulation is much smaller. An article for a journal is written and submitted by a researcher then sent out for review by numerous other folks in the same industry or research field. Sometimes it is rejected, sometimes sent back for improvement (usually), and sometimes published with comment by reviewers. Sources are cited, an abstract (short description) is provided, and research methodology is detailed so that anyone can reproduce it. Magazines are written by professional writers who often have little to no knowledge about the subject, or by guest authors who may be SMEs (subject matter experts), but who don't face critical review by other SMEs before publication.
A journal article may have a title such as "Anatomy and origin of carbonate structures in a Miocene cold-seep field" (this is a fairly short and concise title for a journal), and a magazine would have the same topic titled "Where'd Those Rocks Come From?" FWIW, I have written many magazine articles over the years, and only had 4 articles published in journals.

May I ask who this was in reference too then? It sure sounded to me like you were referencing my post and my efforts to provide LINKS to foment the discussion.

It was in reference to the person who wrote the information in the link you provided.

 

[techamber]

First, you say it's not worth your time and the whole challenge is illogical, but yet you indulge me anyway and debate. Works for me.



Hey, if you can't see the "obama deception", your blindness is not my concern here. That's your own problem. He is creating a military state. Look at all he's accomplished so far: obamacare which FORCES you by gun or imprisonment to purchase healthcare insurance or government provided insurance. Not only are you FORCED to purchase insurance, you're FORCED to pay for other people's insurance. A key example of military states all over the globe. Next we have the Stimulus Bills/Bailouts. Again, we're forced to pay to bailout companies and states and individuals alike with no choice in the matter and completely against the Constitutional authority of government.

Next we come to the obamavision in the works. Forced Community Service and a Youth Military-type Service. Then look no farther than NYC where the NATIONAL GUARD helped NYCPD set up and conduct illegal search and seizure. Then let's look at the FORCED vaccination plans that were implemented in many states at the request of the CDC, a federal entity, and the POTUS Admin.

Don't even get me started on the countless federal agencies that are allowed to make up their own rules as they go without Constitutional Authority, or the many victimless laws that are enforced everyday, or the entirety of the Patriot(Tyranny) ACT.

There is my proof of the Police State being instituted by the last 100 years of government, most of which has come from the current Federal Government (Read: All three branches).

Now, to address the last sentence in bold in your quote....

I would like to see those sources, because I can show you videos from the horses arse himself stating that he wanted to form a Civilian Military Corps, not a "Peace Corps".

You mean just like you are "forced" to buy auto insurance? Where are our mass demonstrations over that evil police state action? You act like other places aren't also forced to pay taxes and that the governments will spend them how they please, or that goverment policies aren't set up to protect people from the stupid actions of others. Because it is the children that will pay if their parent don't have medical insurance.

The source directly counters your second paragraph. It takes a part of the Obama Deception where Jones twists words so that it sounds like that, when they're talking about civil services requiring basic training.

Your "proof" is a series of evidence that is then subjectively turned as "proof" that the government is becoming a plice state. That is not proof that is evidence and up for debate. Bring me an a source showing White House documents talking about how the police state is coming along and then we'll have some proof.

And I already pretty much told you where to find the sources. Seriously it isn't hard to navigate.

 

[SavageEagle]

You mean just like you are "forced" to buy auto insurance? Where are our mass demonstrations over that evil police state action? You act like other places aren't also forced to pay taxes and that the governments will spend them how they please, or that goverment policies aren't set up to protect people from the stupid actions of others. Because it is the children that will pay if their parent don't have medical insurance.

The source directly counters your second paragraph. It takes a part of the Obama Deception where Jones twists words so that it sounds like that, when they're talking about civil services requiring basic training.

Your "proof" is a series of evidence that is then subjectively turned as "proof" that the government is becoming a plice state. That is not proof that is evidence and up for debate. Bring me an a source showing White House documents talking about how the police state is coming along and then we'll have some proof.

And I already pretty much told you where to find the sources. Seriously it isn't hard to navigate.

Where are the demonstrations? Have you not been paying attention for the last two years? Have you even BEEN to a Tea Party? There HAVE been protests against things such as Property and Income tax. I don't mind paying Sales tax or other small, minor taxes (Gas tax, etc) because those are voluntary.

Auto insurance is voluntary. You don't have to buy a car. Buy a horse instead. Buy a bicycle. Call a taxi. Rent a car.

As far as my proof, it's laid out for you right there in black and white. We've stopped living for ourselves and for God, and started living to supply the machine. We have become subjects in the "land of the free". If you can't see how all that I previously stated equals an all out police state, I'll pray for you.

No since debating any longer with someone who can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[SavageEagle]

BTW, if you feel that I am wrong, please, show evidence as to why I am and I will show you evidence of how we ARE becoming a police state through the comparison of the current state of this Country to Nazi Germany, Rome before the fall, present day England, etc, etc, etc.....

 

[techamber]

Where are the demonstrations? Have you not been paying attention for the last two years? Have you even BEEN to a Tea Party? There HAVE been protests against things such as Property and Income tax. I don't mind paying Sales tax or other small, minor taxes (Gas tax, etc) because those are voluntary.

Auto insurance is voluntary. You don't have to buy a car. Buy a horse instead. Buy a bicycle. Call a taxi. Rent a car.

As far as my proof, it's laid out for you right there in black and white. We've stopped living for ourselves and for God, and started living to supply the machine. We have become subjects in the "land of the free". If you can't see how all that I previously stated equals an all out police state, I'll pray for you.

No since debating any longer with someone who can't see the forest for the trees.

I meant the demonstrations against auto insurance as if that wasn't blatantly obvious. And if by "voluntary" you mean "pretty much have to pay to live normally" then I guess they are. You can live as a horse riding self supporting individual and pay no "voluntary" taxes, but that really isn't efficient now is it? And the founding fathers were never for no forced taxes, they were for taxes chosen by the people, which we do.

Gotta say I lol'd at the whole god part, just continuing to build my belief that youz be trollin. Your arguments are about as laid out as a puzzle missing a piece, as in they work but they're not complete. There is no resoluting proof behind any of this. You see something and find only one variable behind it, when real life is far more complicated than that. But I guess you can ignore that as long as the "truth" matches your sentiments.

Either you are a troll are you are so far stuck up your own "arse" that you cannot take the effort to realign and try to look at things from a nuetral point of view which you implied in your opening request. When you stated that you were here to see proof against Jones, you were instead here to hunt out those who have imperical thought and annoy them with your unproven opinions.

 

[SavageEagle]

I meant the demonstrations against auto insurance as if that wasn't blatantly obvious. And if by "voluntary" you mean "pretty much have to pay to live normally" then I guess they are. You can live as a horse riding self supporting individual and pay no "voluntary" taxes, but that really isn't efficient now is it? And the founding fathers were never for no forced taxes, they were for taxes chosen by the people, which we do.

Gotta say I lol'd at the whole god part, just continuing to build my belief that youz be trollin. Your arguments are about as laid out as a puzzle missing a piece, as in they work but they're not complete. There is no resoluting proof behind any of this. You see something and find only one variable behind it, when real life is far more complicated than that. But I guess you can ignore that as long as the "truth" matches your sentiments.

Either you are a troll are you are so far stuck up your own "arse" that you cannot take the effort to realign and try to look at things from a nuetral point of view which you implied in your opening request. When you stated that you were here to see proof against Jones, you were instead here to hunt out those who have imperical thought and annoy them with your unproven opinions.

I just wanted to quote this post.

Yes. I am a troll. My whole purpose here is to stir the pot and cause trouble and then run away. Yep. Do you even know what a troll is? Cause so far you're fitting the very definition.

Now, please, if you don't have anything useful to contribute to the thread go back to your hateful corner of the world and act smart to those who care to listen. If not, I'll just have to continue to laugh at you. So thanks for the laughs! At least you're good for SOMETHING!

 

[tyler34]

I meant the demonstrations against auto insurance as if that wasn't blatantly obvious. And if by "voluntary" you mean "pretty much have to pay to live normally" then I guess they are. You can live as a horse riding self supporting individual and pay no "voluntary" taxes, but that really isn't efficient now is it? And the founding fathers were never for no forced taxes, they were for taxes chosen by the people, which we do.

Gotta say I lol'd at the whole god part, just continuing to build my belief that youz be trollin. Your arguments are about as laid out as a puzzle missing a piece, as in they work but they're not complete. There is no resoluting proof behind any of this. You see something and find only one variable behind it, when real life is far more complicated than that. But I guess you can ignore that as long as the "truth" matches your sentiments.

Either you are a troll are you are so far stuck up your own "arse" that you cannot take the effort to realign and try to look at things from a nuetral point of view which you implied in your opening request. When you stated that you were here to see proof against Jones, you were instead here to hunt out those who have imperical thought and annoy them with your unproven opinions.

since every one of your massive count of posts is in this thread I thinks you be trolling. or perhaps a shill account for another member with equally wacky ideas.

 

[djl02]

alex jones is a government disinfo agent, beware! What exactly,do you mean? Examples please. I listen to him every once in a while. I see some good info at times and theres things I dont. What is a disinfo agent?