INGO Challenge = Proof

[Srtsi4wd]

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

Thanks, I'll do that.

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.

I aggree totally with this. I dont listen to either one of them. While presenting taboo subject matter for most of the MSM, they both manage to marginalize it. I think that there are much better sources of information on these topics and its a shame that the likes of AJ and GB spook people away from really investigating what is happening to our world. Either by being over the top like AJ or just a weasel like GB they both achieve the same goal, desensitization.



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

Understood. Thank you for explaining.

So is the oil link the only one to grab anyones attention? I threw a bunch of stuff out there, did anyone bother to look? Or are all of you going to continue to stare at the shadows on the wall?
Nothing would make me happier than to be totally wrong on every count.
Im interested in knowledge, not in being right.

I still find it amazing that even in light of all the Wall Street, corporate and banking fraud that has happened and continues to this day, that the American people still believe that massive, systemic and endemic lying, misinformation and cover-up is an impossibility in the modern world. Perhaps the greatest lie of all is the one the American public is telling itself, "Everything is going to be ok."

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Im just curious what makes Snopes an expert. Are they an official research group? Do they're researchers have any real background behind collecting evidence etc.


As far as Im concerned, Snopes, while decent is no better than Wiki = Each requiring a grain of salt, as with anything on the internet.

 

[SavageEagle]

You do know who Snopes is run by don't you? Follow the money....

Srt, Shib, you both make good points about how AJ and GB desensitize the material. However, there is some truth in what they speak and you only need do the research for yourself to find the truth. Don't believe everything you hear or see. Seek the truth yourself.

That's all I'm asking of anyone here.

 

[SavageEagle]

We say desensitize, we should also say sensationalize as well. However sensational they make it seem, doesn't mean they're not right though. And wrong.

Again, let me make clear that I don't believe they're 100% right. Or 70% right. Or even 50% right. But they are right, and even if they were only 1% right, that should be enough for you to want to do your own truth seeking about their words.

 

[downzero]

Im just curious what makes Snopes an expert. Are they an official research group? Do they're researchers have any real background behind collecting evidence etc.


As far as Im concerned, Snopes, while decent is no better than Wiki = Each requiring a grain of salt, as with anything on the internet.

No, they just know how to tell the difference between a contraction and a possessive.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

No, they just know how to tell the difference between a contraction and a possessive.

It's my best friend DownZero. Where you been bro. Do you need a buck? I think I have a buck in my pocket...

Wait.... I dont give a buck - About contractions and possessives; now you can give it a rest.

You do know who Snopes is run by don't you? Follow the money....

Srt, Shib, you both make good points about how AJ and GB desensitize the material. However, there is some truth in what they speak and you only need do the research for yourself to find the truth. Don't believe everything you hear or see. Seek the truth yourself.

That's all I'm asking of anyone here.

Generalizations may occur, but does it belittle what they say?

I think the truth is in the eye of the beholder, of which matches the agenda.


Does AJ/GB agenda match your agenda? Does Obamas "truth" match your agenda.

I have no problems with agendas, I have a problem with agendas that are against MY agenda; Which I believe this is what it all boils down to.

I've seen people dispute, and successfully debunk Snopes on specific issues. Which is why I brought it up.

From what I hear, they are no more an authority on what they speak than I am.

 

[SavageEagle]

Generalizations may occur, but does it belittle what they say?

.No no, not generalizations, but sensationalism, like what GB and AJ do when they get passionate. Most of which is sensationalism, but passionate just the same. At least with GB it's not all conspiracy theory. He has great history lessons with much to go look up for yourself. That's one thing I like. He tells you what to research, and sometimes that research leads to more questions.

And what they say isn't always real or true. It's a given. But with the small amounts of evidence he gives, it really does paint a bigger picture. Which is yet part of a BIGGER picture. And I think that's something people don't want to acknowledge.

I think the truth is in the eye of the beholder, of which matches the agenda.

Exactly. which is why we all have to strive to look at things in a more neutral manner. ALL of us. Me included. Another big point of the thread. Everyone has an agenda of SOME kind, but we have to learn to look past that more.

Does AJ/GB agenda match your agenda? Does Obamas "truth" match your agenda.

.To me this all depends on what side of Liberty and Freedom and F you are on.

I have no problems with agendas, I have a problem with agendas that are against MY agenda; Which I believe this is what it all boils down to.

.So what IS your agenda?

I've seen people dispute, and successfully debunk Snopes on specific issues. Which is why I brought it up.

From what I hear, they are no more an authority on what they speak than I am.

Trust me. If you haven't already, go look at who runs snopes and who they are connected to. It is BIASED at the core. Yet so many people on here rely on it.

Not most, many.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

I agree, with you. I do enjoy, and yes they give info, which then leads to more questions. Questions certain folks would rather go unanswered and even unquestioned.

GB connects the Dots, but somethings he's just so vague that people cannot or do not have the "aha momment".
As far as agendas, I believe we must look past, but we must also identify those who will carry on along that agenda.

I see no compromise is able with the current State of America, an All or Nothing situation.

I've heard stories about Snopes. Again, they will push an agenda that suits them.

I will push an agenda that will suit people like me of various degrees, and to each they're own.

This is our own Survival of the fittest.

Unfortunately, the Elitest of America DO NOT have OUR best interest at heart, or the Constitution.

 

[shibumiseeker]

So is the oil link the only one to grab anyones attention?

I don't know about anyone else, but that was the only topic I can claim any expertise on. I usually try to keep my trap shut on topics which I don't have enough knowledge to make an educated evaluation. Especially many politics conspiracy topics where there is no way to really quantify assertions. My former father in law was a nationally respected economist at IU and when he would start talking macroeconomics to me he could lose me within a minute and he well demonstrated how he could make an argument on either side of an issue that was equally convincing, he did that in his classes all the time to demonstrate why it was important to not take economists too seriously.

As far as the other topics you posted, my feeling is that for many of them to be able to refute claims to the level SE seems to want will take several hours to days of research. I got plenty of that writing papers in college and I get plenty of that writing the SAR training curriculum I currently do. I come to the net for relaxation, not to do someone elses research. With the oil example it just so happened to be a topic where no research was needed for me since I'm already well versed.

I do know that I'm going to be very skeptical of demagoguery on either side of an issue.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Im just curious what makes Snopes an expert. Are they an official research group? Do they're researchers have any real background behind collecting evidence etc.


As far as Im concerned, Snopes, while decent is no better than Wiki = Each requiring a grain of salt, as with anything on the internet.

Ah yes. That's why I posted the layman version, the educated layman version, and the serious geek version. A GOOD researcher does not cite one source, and were I writing an article for a journal Snopes would NOT even be in my references list because my audience would already have the necessary background education in the topic that it would be unnecessary. Did you stop your reading of my sources at Snopes? If so then you exhibit the same problem most people do: they simply are not educated enough to follow more complex discussion of a topic (and if you think this is a personal insult, it's not).

 

[shibumiseeker]

You do know who Snopes is run by don't you? Follow the money....

Srt, Shib, you both make good points about how AJ and GB desensitize the material. However, there is some truth in what they speak and you only need do the research for yourself to find the truth. Don't believe everything you hear or see. Seek the truth yourself.

That's all I'm asking of anyone here.

Ahh, but are you willing to take any of the far more credible sources I posted as sufficient evidence to discredit the original assertion?

Because if you can't or won't, then you prove (yes, prove) that no level of evidence will be sufficient for you, because I didn't just post a few internet sources, I hit it with the nuclear option. If that's the case, then why bother?

 

[techamber]

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!

Nah, I'm not being fallacious enough to be a troll. Plus, targeting the small minoritty like you in this case would be somewhat counterproductive, since I could produce a lot more lols by trolling everyone else. When I produced a source, you said it was a rant. When I pointed out the documentation supporting the source, you dodged responding to it. When I pointed out that while there may be evidence supporting your claims but that it was not definative proof, you called me blind. When I pointed out why your claims are not definitive or strong, you posted this. So far I have been contributing the actual logical debate in this subject, and you've been throwing out whatever thoughts seem to support your side of the conflict whether they are relevant or truthful.

 

[SavageEagle]

Nah, I'm not being fallacious enough to be a troll. Plus, targeting the small minoritty like you in this case would be somewhat counterproductive, since I could produce a lot more lols by trolling everyone else. When I produced a source, you said it was a rant. When I pointed out the documentation supporting the source, you dodged responding to it. When I pointed out that while there may be evidence supporting your claims but that it was not definative proof, you called me blind. When I pointed out why your claims are not definitive or strong, you posted this. So far I have been contributing the actual logical debate in this subject, and you've been throwing out whatever thoughts seem to support your side of the conflict whether they are relevant or truthful.

I haven't seen anything productive from you. Just name calling. Which has been quite amusing.

I suppose I am a minority, but I'm certainly a troll.

 

[SavageEagle]

Ahh, but are you willing to take any of the far more credible sources I posted as sufficient evidence to discredit the original assertion?

Because if you can't or won't, then you prove (yes, prove) that no level of evidence will be sufficient for you, because I didn't just post a few internet sources, I hit it with the nuclear option. If that's the case, then why bother?

I'm not sure how credible your sources were as I haven't ever seen them before. I'll just assume for the moment that they ARE credible to ask this question.

What were you trying to debate? That there's more Oil in America than the rest of the world?

I'm sorry, but the OP from the thread that your post was quoted from, the article was from the USGS website, not Beck or Jones. So there was no reason for me to confirm sources or even worry about you and "Srt"'s conversation in the matter.

I'll take credible sources. However, if I've never heard of the source (doesn't mean it's not credible) I'll have to find out who owns, runs, and pays for the site before I KNOW one way or another.

 

[SavageEagle]

FTR, I know there's a great deal of oil here in America. That's a point I have no need to debate.

 

[dross]

I'm not sure how credible your sources were as I haven't ever seen them before. I'll just assume for the moment that they ARE credible to ask this question.

What were you trying to debate? That there's more Oil in America than the rest of the world?

I'm sorry, but the OP from the thread that your post was quoted from, the article was from the USGS website, not Beck or Jones. So there was no reason for me to confirm sources or even worry about you and "Srt"'s conversation in the matter.

I'll take credible sources. However, if I've never heard of the source (doesn't mean it's not credible) I'll have to find out who owns, runs, and pays for the site before I KNOW one way or another.

So you're challenging the issue he chose to present evidence against, AND you're challenging his sources not on the merits of the argument, but because you aren't aware of them?

What are you trying to do here?

Suggestion. Pick one theory from Jones, one from Beck. Present the evidence they use to assert their theory. Go from there.

You ask us to pick an issue they advance and "prove it wrong". Someone tries just that and you say they picked the wrong issue and the wrong sources.

What do you want?

 

[SavageEagle]

So you're challenging the issue he chose to present evidence against, AND you're challenging his sources not on the merits of the argument, but because you aren't aware of them?

What are you trying to do here?

Suggestion. Pick one theory from Jones, one from Beck. Present the evidence they use to assert their theory. Go from there.

You ask us to pick an issue they advance and "prove it wrong". Someone tries just that and you say they picked the wrong issue and the wrong sources.

What do you want?

Slow your roll there speedy. The point he was trying to argue was not one of Beck OR Jones. Second, it's not an issue that I can disprove because it's well documented that there are MASSIVE oil reserves right here in the Continental USA. This comes from the USGS, as well as many private companies. Third, I'm not challenging his sources. I'm just stating that I have no reason to verify them on my own because the issue doesn't relate to the current discussion.

What do I want? I want a discussion on Jones (in this thread) or Beck (in the other thread) and why you all think THEY are wrong on an issue.

 

[shibumiseeker]

I'm not sure how credible your sources were as I haven't ever seen them before. I'll just assume for the moment that they ARE credible to ask this question.

What were you trying to debate? That there's more Oil in America than the rest of the world?

Nope, that the folks who claim we have all the oil we need right here in the US because this oil field will provide us with the next 50 years of oil at current consumption have little clue what they are talking about.



I'm sorry, but the OP from the thread that your post was quoted from, the article was from the USGS website, not Beck or Jones. So there was no reason for me to confirm sources or even worry about you and "Srt"'s conversation in the matter.

I'll take credible sources. However, if I've never heard of the source (doesn't mean it's not credible) I'll have to find out who owns, runs, and pays for the site before I KNOW one way or another.

Son, you can't get any more credible or least biased on this topic than the journal Geology. Period. You can't. Sure, any journal can have bias, but it's going to be the least amount of bias of anything else out there.

I provide pretty complete evidence to refute one major thing and you dismiss it, and CAN'T even provide evidence to the counter from at least as credible source, yet your mind is made up and yet you complain that no one provides solid evidence. THIS is why I simply cannot take you seriously.

 

[djl02]

I have read that they hit 2 huge wells around Prudhoe Bay. I have also heard him on AJ's show,but thats not the first time I heard it.Supposible they were capped and never pumped a barrel from them. You ever heard of this conspiracy?Info comes from a Baptist Minister?Suppose to be the biggest known well in the world.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

This thread is a prime example why I think that it'd be a fantastic idea to have classes in "Logic" as required in middle school and high school curriculums.

As much as I hate the notion of extra "liberal arts" type stuff, it's probably help a great deal.