Mike Ruppert's in trouble

[Dreams End]

Well, you may not care about Ruppert, but that is what this thread was about. "Mike Ruppert's in Trouble." Says so right in the title. So it seemed that some discussion of Ruppert was...<br><br>oh nevermind. <p></p><i></i>

[JJDD]

Conventional oil will peak. No one denies it. Pretty much the rest of "peak oil theory" is bullshit.<br><br>"So there are refineries that process the dirtier oil. So what? The point is, is that it is more expensive, not only monetarily, but energy wise."<br><br>How much more expensive? 75% of the refineries in the U.S. already process heavy oil, and are making record profits doing so. That's hardly a sign of energy cost stress.<br><br>"If it takes you half a barrel of oil to extract a barrel when it used to only take you a quarter then, yes, we're on the down slope of energy production."<br><br>For the most part, oil isn't used to extract oil. In 1997, 88% of the energy used to extract oil in the U.S. came from natural gas, and the ratio of energy produced to energy expended was 22:1. That's in a province 30 years past its peak.You're talking out your ass.<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/08/49-energy-intensity-of-oil-and-gas.html">peakoildebunked.blogspot....d-gas.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Also, oil does not equal energy. That's a classic bit of peak oiler hype. Energy production will stabilize and continue to grow after peak oil due to the continued growth of natural gas, coal, unconventional oil, nuclear and renewables.<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/08/69-will-peak-oil-make-growth-of.html">peakoildebunked.blogspot....th-of.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/09/111-rebound.html">peakoildebunked.blogspot....bound.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>The price of oil doesn't prove anything. Oil prices spiked much higher than they are now in the late 1970s - early 1980s, and oil didn't peak. "Prices are high, therefore we're peaking" is just another load of peak oiler hype.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[gotnoscript]

"How much more expensive? 75% of the refineries in the U.S. already process heavy oil, and are making record profits doing so. That's hardly a sign of energy cost stress."<br><br>You can't create oil with money. Period. <br><br>"For the most part, oil isn't used to extract oil. In 1997, 88% of the energy used to extract oil in the U.S. came from natural gas, and the ratio of energy produced to energy expended was 22:1. That's in a province 30 years past its peak.You're talking out your ass."<br><br>I never said oil is used to extract oil. I said energy. At some point it will require more energy to produce oil than is extracted. That includes the whole process from well to the delivery of gasoline to your local gas station. Last I checked, oil tankers don't run on natural gas, and neither most cars and trucks don't run on natural gas. Check your own ass before you go sniffing mine.<br><br><br>"Also, oil does not equal energy. That's a classic bit of peak oiler hype. Energy production will stabilize and continue to grow after peak oil due to the continued growth of natural gas, coal, unconventional oil, nuclear and renewables."<br><br>Who's talking out his ass here? Oil isn't energy? That's blatant denial. What is it? Candy? Natural gas, coal will peak also. But later. Besides, planes don't run on coal, neither do automobiles. Likewise do they neither run on nuclear power. What are you going to do then?<br><br>"The price of oil doesn't prove anything. Oil prices spiked much higher than they are now in the late 1970s - early 1980s, and oil didn't peak. "Prices are high, therefore we're peaking" is just another load of peak oiler hype."<br><br>Again, putting words in my mouth. I never said prices are high therefore we're peaking. They spiked in the 70's and 80's for political reasons. They will spike and are spiking now for geologic reasons. <br> <p></p><i></i>

[Bismillah]

The pettiness of some people's reaction to Ruppert's misfortunes is really sad to see. The schadenfreude, the crowing, the mean-spirited one-upmanship of it all! (Wilhelm Reich described all this very well sixty years ago; he called it "the emotional plague".) <br><br>And the plain fact is this: Ruppert has done more than anyone else to publicise the poverty of the "official" account of 9/11, and to make a real case rather than merely ranting, raving, surmising and speculating. In doing so, he has also been impeccably generous to his sources and fellow researchers - as anyone can verify who has had the minimal decency to read his book before pissing on him anonymously in blog comments boxes. <p></p><i></i>

[eric144]

"The schadenfreude, the crowing, the mean-spirited one-upmanship of it all! "<br><br>Only in your imagination. I have zero interest in Ruppert's personal fortune or misfortune. I haven't even read his begging letter. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=eric144>eric144</A> at: 10/14/05 9:41 am<br></i>

[manxkat]

Thank you Bismillah for your words of rationality. I do see a lot of petty, mean-spirited comments in here as well. Sad indeed. <p></p><i></i>

[Bismillah]

eric144, yesterday, 6:43 am: “Ruppert is of the same character type as his (he hoped) money spinning finds Gunther Russbacher and Mike Vreeland, he's a wanna be psychopath.”<br><br>eric144, yesterday, 7: 20 am: <br><br>“He's begging for money, that's what the thread is about. He was a policeman, now he's a crook, it's a well trodden path.”<br><br>eric144, today, 9:40 am: <br><br>(Quotes Bismillah: “The schadenfreude, the crowing, the mean-spirited one-upmanship of it all!”)<br><br>Only in your imagination. I have zero interest in Ruppert's personal fortune or misfortune. I haven't even read his begging letter.“<br><br>- QED: lazy, petty, vindictive, mean-spirited, opportunistic and without a leg to stand on. <br><br>When Ruppert accuses someone of being a crook (Cheney, for instance), he takes very good care to back up that accusation with serious evidence, much of it acquired by means of painstaking research. Subsequently, he’s pissed on by anonymous heroes in blog comments boxes, who then pretend they’ve done no pissing.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

Well, why don't you have a look around for all the OTHER Ruppert threads. It gets repetitious. <br><br>Reprint from one of those threads:<br><br>This is a fascinating look at why Dale Allen Pfeiffer left Mike Ruppert's From the Wilderness. The email exchanges he published between himself and Ruppert support all the negative views I've read about Ruppert. In addition, the main reason he cites as leaving is of interest. Besides not being allowed to write about anything but Peak Oil, he has a very long account of his dispute with one of the editors of FTW. Pfeiffer says he wanted to call for a general strike as a response to Peak Oil and the other editor, Jamey Hecht, disagreed entirely with this idea and said things generally disparaging of the working class in general:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> Quote:<br> Previous entries in this blog explain my dissatisfaction with FTW. Unfortunately everything came to a head in the months of August, after our move to Appalachia. The final row began when I wrote an article for FTW about peak oil and the working class. In this article, I stated that the working class needed to band together to achieve the eventual goal of a general strike and the transformation of society into a true democracy. Evidently, Mike Ruppert and Jamey Hecht both disagreed with this article. I am sure Mike Ruppert has no desire to see his own staff unionize, much less turn FTW into a democratically run business.<br><br><br><br>Please note, Pfeiffer, as far as I can tell, is not repudiating the Peak Oil theory, but simply it's use in non-progressive ways. So this is about Ruppert and not about Peak Oil. But he does end with this:<br><br> Quote:In the month since I left FTW, Mike Ruppert has tried to milk the Energy Roundtable list for the information he used to receive from me. He has also printed editorials stating that the US is going to collapse within the next few months, implying that all of the recent hurricanes were created intentionally through weather control technology, and suggesting the need for legislated population regulation.<br><br> Numerous people have told me they have no use for Mike Ruppert and that his website is going down the tubes. And since leaving, I have learned of other former employees who received even worse treatment from him than I did, along with others who have had very bad encounters with Mike Ruppert. I even found out about a lawsuit for defamation of character which was filed against Mike Ruppert last year. I have not heard how this lawsuit was decided, and Mike has certainly never mentioned it. If the plaintiff won, then I can see why Mike has no money.<br><br> Perhaps I was wrong in my accusation about how Mike used me. Maybe he was right. I drew the only conclusions I could based upon what was happening. He kept me out of the loop on most of the business at FTW, including articles dealing with subjects that I was being retained to edit. Other people have told me that I did not draw the wrong conclusions. Mike used me to become a noted authority on peak oil and to lend credibility to his speculations. And he has done a very good job of muddying up and sensationalizing the issue of energy depletion.<br><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Pfeiffer's link to his blog no longer works. Usually I post a link so people can read the entire article. I think his entire blog is down. <br><br>Now, please, go look around on this board for more of this...no one is just randomly picking on Ruppert, he has a history and it has been explored in depth here. Not saying everyone agrees...that is certainly NOT the case, but just that there have been very long discussions on this topic as to why some of us think him a charlatan. <br> <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

And, of course, the mother of all peak oil threads:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm19.showMessage?topicID=5.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...ID=5.topic</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>It's long and detailed. You won't agree, but you can't say it's just namecalling. <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

And the last Ruppert thread...by the way all these are under "energy issues." Two mouseclicks away for your viewing pleasure.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm19.showMessage?topicID=3.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...ID=3.topic</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[Bismillah]

DreamsEnd on Ruppert: "some of us think him a charlatan." <br><br>Ruppert has written precisely one book, six hundred pages long and impeccably referenced: the single best and most-closely argued case for the impeachment of the murderous Bush Gang. I have yet to see a single argument against it that even approaches seriousness. (As opposed to a ton of dirt-cheap ad hominems and plain lies.)<br><br>I did read those other anti-Ruppert postings, all of them, as and when they came out. And yes, your heh-hehing at Ruppert's misfortunes is also shabby, for reasons I see no need to restate. <br><br>In view of Ruppert's achievement in writing that book - which is, VERY noticeably, never the subject of any serious counter-argument - how can you justify the way you carry on sniping at him from a safe distance? To take just one particularly nasty example: I am losing patience with people who say he "calls for" depopulation, when he is in fact pointing out that massive and brutal depopulation is +++already taking place+++ as a result of war, famine, energy-inequality and disease in much of the world (the largely-invisible part, which - not coincidentally - consists mainly of foreigners who are poor and dark-skinned). <br><br>Then you present this spat between Pfeiffer and Ruppert as if it were proof of anything except of Pfeiffer's folly in posting when clearly distraught and exhausted. I suspect the reason for the current unavailabilty of Pfeiffer's website is simply that he regrets what's he posted - as well he might, because it doesn't reflect well on him. (And yes, I did take the trouble to read right through it.) So a clever and gifted writer with an ego and ambitions got tired of working for somebody else. What else is new?<br><br>Is Ruppert sometimes blustering, tactless, choleric? Is he sometimes hard to work with? And even harder to work for? I can well believe it, because I had a brief run-in with him myself at a big 9/11 event I co-organised two years ago. He also had the grace to apologise only minutes later (when an apology wasn't strictly necessary) - and to take the advice given. He also gave, without notes, one the best and best-prepared live talks I have ever experienced. And he also wrote the single best book on 9/11. <br><br>The point being: it's of very little interest to me exactly how nice, modest or personable Michael Ruppert is. Personally I like the guy, although I only ever met him that once. Much more to the point: in times like these, it's an unconscionable distraction and trivialisation to throw around words like "charlatan" or "crook" when Ruppert is already risking much more than his livelihood to do what he does, and does extremely well, with admirable persistence and seriousness, and against all the odds (including the CIA). <br><br>So get off his back. Because he surely has enough weight to carry already.<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[BlueCherub]

I haven't been following the recent Ruppert saga much at all, but what really strikes me here is what smells like a case of "attacking the messenger instead of the message".... <br><br>They can't have people REALLY believing him, ain't that so?! <sarcasm> <p></p><i></i>

[eric144]

He's a man who likes to hob nob with con men psychopaths like Russbacher (as described by the FBI) and Vreeland to further his personal ambition. There's also the cancer cure criminal low life at PQI which he's admitted to and still promotes on his website<br><br>He's an arrogant thug who likes to bully people by threatening to sue them and remind them of his wealth which is real. That included Dick Eastman, who describes himself as an umployable internet junkie.<br><br>He made a lot of money recently fromn Rubicon and his large income from subscribers. Peak oil was just yet another Ruppert idea to keep them hooked on his website. <br><br>The begging thing is just pathetic.<br><br>"lazy, petty, vindictive, mean-spirited, opportunistic and without a leg to stand on."<br><br>It's not my fault you're confused.<br><br>I haven't read his 9/11 research because he's said some unbelievably dumb. idiotic and arrogant things. I've had words with him as well and as far as I'm concerned he's a nitwit. He's also a former LAPD officer and the idea that one would trust the word of a former policeman is completely preposterous.<br><br><br>He has no support on his own Yahoo CIA drugs forum, they all think he's a pathetic asshole and is no longer welcome there.<br><br>Ruppert is exactly the kind of sad, troubled, mentally unstable dodgy character the Neocons would love to see at the front of the 9/11 movement, he is such an easy target, just like George Galloway for the Iraq issue.<br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=eric144>eric144</A> at: 10/14/05 2:34 pm<br></i>

[petron]

Well put Bismillah. Never met the guy but found "Crossing the Rubicon" a work of art and extremely enlightening. <p></p><i></i>

[eric144]

Sorrry, did I forget to mention he's a complete lunatic who wants to kill 4 billion people.<br><br>Even his most simple minded fans balked at that. On the basis of intelligence, they would be the first to go.<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :lol --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br><br>"Plans must be made to remove at least 4 billion people from the globe in the next few decades if humanity is to survive the upcoming energy crash," <br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.rense.com/general62/ruppertendorses4billion.htm">www.rense.com/general62/r...illion.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>