Mike Ruppert's in trouble

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

--

Postby gotnoscript » Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:02 pm

To JDD,<br> Let's see. Tankers can be retrofitted to run on coal or Natural Gas (which will peak 20 years after oil), as well as automobiles. SASOL manufactures jet fuel from coal (at what coast over oil? You don't say, but I'm sure much higher.) All this just confirms that peak oil will hit hard. None of these will be a replacement for oil. The point is THEY ARE ALL MORE EXPENSIVE TO PRODUCE THAN OIL. That's the point. And that's what the peak oil denialists refuse to understand. There's nothing like cheap oil to replace it. NOTHING.<br> <p></p><i></i>
gotnoscript
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 1:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

nothing nothing nothing

Postby proldic » Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:16 pm

except solar and wind<br><br>but they're not meter-able, so fuck 'em, right? <p></p><i></i>
proldic
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

McGowan

Postby eric144 » Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:36 pm

Here is the exchange between Ruppert and Dave McGowan. McGowan points out that Ruppert has made (and continues to make) very large sums of money from his imaginary conspiracy theories. He doesn't need money from anyone.<br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://educate-yourself.org/cn/davemcgowan54newsletter18mar04.shtml">educate-yourself.org/cn/d...ar04.shtml</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>and<br><br>Mike Ruppert's Panhandling Scam <br><br>Mike Ruppert must think that people on the Internet are stupid, especially the “subscribers” to his From the Wilderness newsletter. In fact, he must think they’re the most idiotic people on the face of the earth.<br><br>I mean, it’s bad enough that Ruppert was run-out of the 9-11 Movement on a rail; that he’s been proven to be a pawn of Big Oil via his cockamamie “peak oil” theories, and that he’s regularly mocked, derided, and shown to be a liar on message boards all across the ‘Net. Worse, numerous 9-11 researchers have unmistakably shown how Ruppert was put in place to deliberately distract everyone away from the WTC controlled demolition and other 9-11 crux issues.<br><br>But now Crazy Mike (and that’s putting it mildly) has hit an all-time low. In his latest FTW newsletter, he’s begging for money with such pathetic desperation that it’s embarrassing to even read. Ruppert has fallen to such miserable depths that what little self-respect he was so desperately clinging to is now regrettably gone.<br><br>It seems Mike wants to move from Los Angeles to the Pacific Northwest; and he also wants to produce a new DVD.<br><br>But guess what. He doesn’t want to pay for his move. He wants YOU to pay for it. Worse, guess who he wants to pay for the production of his next DVD? Himself. Hell no! He wants YOU to pay for it!<br><br>Now think about this peculiar notion for a moment. What if GM (which is also facing financial difficulties, like just about everyone else in America) sent a mass e-mail and said they wanted to produce a new car, but they wanted YOU to finance it. Of course they would pocket all the profits, and there was no mention whatsoever of profit-sharing. What would you think? You’d probably laugh your asses off, like I (and any other sane person) would.<br><br>But get this --- Mike Ruppert wants YOU to pay to produce his video. Can you believe the unmitigated gall of this worm? Of course he throws in some scare tactics for good measure (about how we have to “prepare for the collapse”); and then Ruppert brags about how he’s suckered people before into his little panhandling scheme. Once, in 2000, he “raised” $11,000; then in 2003 he “raised” $130,000 more. Not a bad little racket he has going, huh! I’m reminded of that song about “money for nothing.”<br><br>But now, in Ruppert’s own exact words, he tells us, “We need that much again and more.”<br><br>Can you believe your eyes? In this lousy economy with families scraping to get by, Ruppert wants people to send him $130,000+! I’ve never in my life witnessed such narcissistic arrogance. Hey Mike, have you ever considered getting a job like everyone else?<br><br>He continues, “I am not asking for loans.” Of course not; he wants YOU to give him his money for free with no strings attached.<br><br>He then adds, “I am taking my own advice and refusing to go further in debt.” <br><br>So let me get this straight. Ruppert doesn’t want to go into debt; but to raise $130,000 he wants YOU to go into debt! What a helluva nice guy, huh – always looking out for your best interests. I guess P.T. Barnum was right – there is a sucker born every minute because if there is even one person alive who’d fall for this scam, they’d surely have to have SUCKER written across their forehead.<br><br>Ruppert concludes this pathetic little ruse by declaring, “I cannot guarantee that we would be able to repay any loans anyway.”<br><br>But wait a second. What about the profits from the DVD that he wants everyone to finance? Couldn’t he repay them with those funds? Oh, wait a second, I forgot – Mike’s going to use that dough to relocate himself (plus four other people and their families) to the Great Northwest. How foolish of me to forget.<br><br>But y’see, there’s more to the story. Mike recently had a Summary Judgment leveled against him in L.A. County for $5,072.00. This fine resulted from being taken to small claims court by a former employee. Now $5,000 bucks ain’t small change, and usually when ya reach this kind of fee, the judge wants some money or else he threatens you with the clanking of prison cell bars. Do you think Ruppert might want to use a little bit of YOUR money to pay-off the law man?<br><br>Furthermore, I recently quoted an e-mail from Elizabeth Pfeiffer (wife of former Ruppert employee Dale Pfeiffer) where she stated that Ruppert has been talking about the FBI extorting money from him.<br><br>Not only is the above assertion bizarre beyond words, but here is what else Ruppert talks about in his panhandling letter: FTW workers sabotaging his operations, troubles with the IRS, being shaken down as a burglary suspect, FBI “black bag jobs”, money mysteriously appearing and disappearing from his bank account, retired FBI moles spying on him (isn’t that a hoot), supposed assassination threats originating from WING TV, surveillance on him in NYC and DC, how he was screwed out of a $640,000 inheritance, how the NSA ‘torpedoed’ him out of $11,000, and how he might have to seek refuge in a foreign country (whatever happened to Oregon)?<br><br>And all of the above was contained in a six-page e-mail! Hell, I was waiting for Ruppert to resurrect old con-man Mike “Delmart” Vreeland to add the final icing on the cake.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/ruppertpanhandle.html">69.28.73.17/thornarticles...andle.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
eric144
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:16 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

the web gets smaller

Postby wintler » Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:50 pm

The web gets smaller every day!<br><br>'JJDD', you're not by any chance JD author of <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/">peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> , the same as the 'JohnDenver' of peakoil.com, infamous for his enthusiasm for space mirrors, "who needs nature", and a nuclear reactor in every town - theres still any number of questions on po.com awaiting answers from you JD, naughty boy not doing your homework!<br><br>Cautionary headsup - Mike Ruppert does not equal peak oil, peak oil does not equal Mike Ruppert, much tho some wish to muddy the waters.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
wintler
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:28 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: the web gets smaller

Postby Dreams End » Sun Oct 16, 2005 9:26 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Mike Ruppert does not equal peak oil, peak oil does not equal Mike Ruppert, much tho some wish to muddy the waters.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><br>Might want to check the title of this thread. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

gosh

Postby wintler » Sun Oct 16, 2005 9:42 pm

what would i do without you DE. Save on asprin?<br><br>You yourself have made solely peak oil posts on this thread (pg2), and have elsewhere repeatedly collided/equated ruppert with PO, e.g.<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm19.showMessageRange?topicID=5.topic&start=81&stop=100">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...1&stop=100</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Proldic, JJDD, & Eric144 have also tried to smear peak oil with ruppert and viceversa. If had the time i'd call them on their lies ("Ruppert wants to kill four billion people..") but i know from experience you lot have ENDLESS hours (good point Moonshine) to lie and confuse.<br><br>So save the pointless pointscoring, you're getting so obvious its embarrassing. <p></p><i></i>
wintler
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:28 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: gosh

Postby Dreams End » Sun Oct 16, 2005 9:46 pm

no need to bother uncovering my vast webs of anti-peak lies and deceit. I linked to the previous threads earlier...anyway, they are all under the "energy" section in the archives. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

natural gas depletion

Postby wrench in the machine » Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:21 pm

"Yes, many decades from now."<br><br>nodee nodee no no no. natural gas will peak at the most 12 years after crude, if and only if present rates of consumption are held to. if we go about stop-gapping crude consumption with natural gas, well, there goes even a dozen years of offset. <br><br>note: amorica has peaked in natural gas, NA is not far behind, and will have to import any deficit incurred from this point forward in its supply / demand ratio. <br><br>and just how do you ship natural gas, and is the infrasturcutre in place to do so, and what does that infrastructure provide in the way of target for not so sympathetic interests? heh. the devil is indeed in the details.... <p></p><i></i>
wrench in the machine
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: gosh

Postby eric144 » Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:36 pm

("Ruppert wants to kill four billion people..") <br><br>I didn't check the facts because I know Ruppert is a complete psycho who is more than capable of saying just that. What he said was actually worse. Forget Rodney King, this is the neanderthal hubris of the LAPD at its very best.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://educate-yourself.org/cn/davemcgowan54newsletter18mar04.shtml">educate-yourself.org/cn/d...ar04.shtml</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <br><br>"I advocate an immediate convening of political, economic, spiritual and scientific leaders from all nations to address the issue of Peak Oil (and Gas) and its immediate implications for economic collapse, massive famine and climate destruction (partially as a result of reversion to coal plants which accelerate global warming). This would, scientifically speaking, include immediate steps to arrive at a crash program – agreed to by all nations and in accordance with the highest spiritual and ethical principles – to stop global population growth and to arrive at the best possible and most ethical program of population reduction as a painful choice made by all of humanity. "<br><br>Did I mention that Colin Campbell, Mr Peak Oil is a former senior executive who has worked with all the major oil companies. I think I did. I think I said that they want the price of oil to rise to $200 as well.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
eric144
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:16 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Professional liar and confuser?

Postby proldic » Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:51 pm

Wintler's view last month:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br><br>oolala<br><br>Great briefer for a great social change tool proldic, <br><br>hope don't mind if copynkeep; <br><br>damned if i don't have to revise an opinion.<br><br>Have never attempted the sophistication you lay out<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=1123.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...1123.topic</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br> <p></p><i></i>
proldic
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: natural gas depletion

Postby eric144 » Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:53 pm

Why don't you peak oil boys just admit you know absolutely nothing about geology, oil reserves and where the figures you bandy about come from. It's likely you have no scientific expertise in any field and wouldn't understand the research even if you had access to it. <br><br>Science is difficult. <br><br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=eric144>eric144</A> at: 10/16/05 9:05 pm<br></i>
eric144
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:16 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: priorities

Postby Gouda » Sun Oct 16, 2005 11:33 pm

i bought ruppert's book when it came out. that should be enough. i thank him for his contribution to the debate, but can't feel responsible for the mess he is in right now. especially when there are probably a few billion other people on earth who could use a hand, as opposed to a token 1st world handout, more than he. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?

Postby wrench in the machine » Sun Oct 16, 2005 11:59 pm

"figures you bandy about come from...."<br><br>not only do i know where they come from, but i have actually corroborated them through disperate sources of record, mainly petroleum industry reports and government statistical references. <br><br>"likely you have no scientific expertise in any field..."<br><br>you got me here, as my masters is in Library and Information Science, which I will freely admit is a squishy discipline and not a hard science, which is what i am assumin' you are gettin' at.<br><br>what i am versed in, through my education and practice at work, is evaluating information resources, statistical analysis, and some basic math. those abilities, along with too many of my non-remunerated hours over the past four years of poking around the "reserach" leads me to say what i did.<br><br>and you can counter the analysis with...? <p></p><i></i>
wrench in the machine
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

..

Postby wintler » Mon Oct 17, 2005 12:06 am

eric144 - as a postgrad in physical sciences i can only laugh at your attempt to condescend, so very unscientific. I sure don't know everything but the peak oil debunkers provide only tenuously linked motives for fraud and zero physical evidence.<br>If we're not peaking there must be lots more oil, WHERE IS IT? <br>If C.Campbell & co have faked exploration & discovery data, HOW DID THEY DO IT? <br><br>Proldic - I don't see how recognising the value of one thing you provided means i have to accept everything you say. GWB often gets the day of the week right, so i should accept his thoughts on spreading peace with war? i don't think so.<br><br>Would be happy to leave the thread to discussion of M.Ruppert, so long as others don't keep saying that Rupperts troubles prove peak oil is a scam. <br><br>The discredit-by-association game is textbook psyop, has to make me doubtful of mental rigor if not of motives.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
wintler
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:28 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

science

Postby smiths » Mon Oct 17, 2005 12:10 am

actually science is easy,<br>draw a bell curve and mark a point at the top of the curve,<br>everything on the right hand side of that point is post peak,<br>everything that has ever been mined or extracted for supply conformed to that curve roughly,<br>draw another curve that is flat on the left and rises geometrically towards the right, that is demand for oil <br>spend some time considering what those two diverging arcs signify on the right hand side of the page,<br><br>but truthfully science is impossible without facts<br><br>"Saudi Arabia is the sole oil superpower. No other producer possesses reserves close to its 263 billion barrels, which is almost twice as much as the runner-up, Iran, with 133 billion barrels.<br>But the truth about Saudi oil is hard to figure out. Oil reservoirs cannot be inventoried like wood in a wilderness: the oil is underground, unseen by geologists and engineers, who can, at best, make highly educated guesses about how much is underfoot and how much can be extracted in the future. And there is a further obstacle: the Saudis will not let outsiders audit their confidential data on reserves and production. Oil is an industry in which not only is the product hidden from sight but so is reliable information about it."<br><br>so no-one can talk as if they really know, cos almost no-one does, except maybe sadad al-husseini,<br>"Husseini earned a Ph.D. in geological sciences from Brown University in 1973 and went to work in Aramco's exploration department, eventually rising to the highest position. Until his retirement last year -- said to have been caused by a top-level dispute, the nature of which is the source of many rumors -- Husseini was a member of the company's board and its management committee. He is one of the most respected and accomplished oilmen in the world."<br><br>''You look at the globe and ask, 'Where are the big increments?' and there's hardly anything but Saudi Arabia,'' he said. ''The kingdom and Ghawar field are not the problem. That misses the whole point. The problem is that you go from 79 million barrels a day in 2002 to 82.5 in 2003 to 84.5 in 2004. You're leaping by two million to three million a year, and if you have to cover declines, that's another four to five million.'' In other words, if demand and depletion patterns continue, every year the world will need to open enough fields or wells to pump an additional six to eight million barrels a day -- at least two million new barrels a day to meet the rising demand and at least four million to compensate for the declining production of existing fields. ''That's like a whole new Saudi Arabia every couple of years,'' Husseini said. ''It can't be done indefinitely. It's not sustainable.'' <br><br>but no doubt there are people here who know more than sadad,<br><br>all quotes from<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/magazine/21OIL.html?ei=5090&en=4c742b408ca7847a&ex=1282276800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all">www.nytimes.com/2005/08/2...wanted=all</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
smiths
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 4:18 am
Location: perth, western australia
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Media and Information Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests