The Darth Vizzle
TrutherMei
There's oil on Saturn's Moon Titan. So were there dinosaurs and forests on it too?
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-20080213.html
Discovery backs theory oil not 'fossil fuel'
New evidence supports premise that Earth produces endless supply
]http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=45838
Well first of all, no, Saturn's moon does not have petroleum on it. It's methane and ethane - these are hydrocarbons. Petroleum is made up of a variety of hydrocarbons, but that's not what they've found on Saturn. If you read the article, they state very clearly that it's methane. One is not the other; don't get them confused.
The actual point I'm making has doesn't have to do with the fossil fuel theory at all, but with the fact that - in terms of how fast oil is renewed - is that it's a very slow process, in any theory you choose to use. If you look at the results for the extraction of supposedly abiotic hydrocarbons, the result is very small - something like .02 percent per extraction. That's not even relevant on a regional scale of contributing to the use of hydrocarbons - let alone petroleum. Which is my point - even if hydrocarbons are renewed abiotically, even if these are somehow formed into petroleum, it's a very slow process by all accounts, which means that we're not going to get back what we use in a relevant time frame.
No where in EITHER theory does it say that PETROLEUM is renewed as fast as, or faster than, our use of it. Only that the basis for making petroleum, hydrocarbons, like methane are being renewed at an unverified, but apparently slow, rate.
Which means that, last I checked, the Earth is not making more oil than is being used. At least, it's not making it through any means from which we can extract it. If it's making all this oil to replace what we use and it's stuck guts-deep in the mantle, I'd consider that a null and void response because it's not usable, and doesn't even fit the context here.
Which lends itself to my original statement: That we're not getting back what we use in a timeframe that's useful for us, and certainly not as fast as implied by the "insider."
Cellphone: That's a pretty convenient cop-out. If anything, that only supports my idea that the guy is just some neckbeard basement dweller writing this s**t up to mess with people, because it's really convenient that he "could be lying" which means "I can say whatever the ******** I want because I'm using my context as an "insider" as a basis of "authority" without actually providing any such authenticity."
That's the same sort of thing a two-bit tarot card reader says too; it's all open to interpretation, maybe it's this. maybe it's that. They're totally authentic when you pay them the money, but it's all up to you to work it out. That's how con artists work. I can do it too, and in fact I have. It's not that hard to craft a believable "theory" when you provide a few hooks to get people in and then use a fictional basis of being "in the know" to make it seem authentic.
In other words, it's a half-cocked crock of s**t. There are conspiracy theories that have some basis in truth, or that could possibly be going in the right directions. This does not sound like one of them.
As I said: information presented is meant to be viewed, thought upon, and then affirmed or denied. I choose to deny it, because I'm not seeing anything that fits together or even remotely comes across as authentic.
If someone else chooses to bite the hook, metaphorically speaking, that's their decision.
=]
I'm glad to hear you say that.
