But I thought oil is dinosaur juice. D. Rockefeller wouldn't lie to us, right?
OP, this video pushes the same narrative, but instead of dinosaurs it's now algae and plankton that form oil through a mysterious process taking millions of years. It also means we still could consume more oil than is produced by that process, meaning peak oil could still be valid. You're poisoning the well with this vsauce goober.
He mentions that it went from a lubricant to a fuel, but humans have been using oil for thousands of years for all sorts of things, including fuel.
About 2000 years ago the Chinese used oil and natural gas for heat and light. Bamboo pipes carried gas into home. Ancient Persians, 10th century Sumatrans and pre-Columbian Indians all believed that crude oil had medicinal benefits.
I know egyptians used bitumen to make airtight seals, like on the jars they would use to preserve animals, like birds.
Also, if it was so easily available, I dont think saudia arabia would have trillions of dollars in profit, how does that help the rockefellers? Im sure if he thought it was easy to take their shit, he would have done it.
He does touch on a key point about it being called "fossil" fuels, and I admit I dont know the reasoning behind that, but he does explain that its mostly made up of hydrogen carbon and oxygen, which all living things on earth are made up of.
I dont agree that its as abundant as water, and even it is, pumping it out of the ground is prolly causing alot of earthquakes and sinkholes. It would also be something else if its like final fantasy 7, and its the "blood" of the planet.
Page 4 of the actual story (seems to be more stuff in this pdf now.)
Eastern Siberia and the Orient suffer a strange fate indeed - as though a giant subterranean scythe sweeps away the earth's foundations, accompanied by the wind in its screaming symphony of supersonic death and destruction. As the Artic basin leaves its polar home, eastern Siberia, Manchuria, China, and Burma are subjected to the same annihilations as south america: wind, earth-fire, inundation, and freezing.
Jungle animals are shredded to ribbons by the wind, piled into mountains of flesh and bone, and buried under avalanches of seawater and mud. Then comes the terrible, paralyzing cold. Not man, nor beast, nor plant, nor earth is left unfrozen in the entire eastern Asian continent, most of which remains below sea level.
o_O wouldnt it be ironic in a million years some new form of human is sucking our death juices dry LMAO.
I believe it too, my dad used to say how burning wood releases all the energy that it collected from the sun during its time alive, I dont see why humans, or other living beings would be any different.
First you have to understand the dinosaurs never existed. This is super hard because obviously we've been programmed to believe in the museums and the things that we've seen. We don't believe that it's possible to subvert an entire branch of science called paleontology. But it is.
The way that you can know this is by looking at the curvature of the Earth. When you can't find that curvature you'll have to admit that the theory of this place being a globe that's billions of years old is no longer a valid theory. Then you can start questioning the possibility that dinosaurs are also not real.
Then you start to see how easily it was to convince everybody that old decomposing things could equate to dinosaurs and thus making the existence of dinosaurs seem more real.
With what I know now, I wouldn't disagree that dinosaurs didn't exist.
Do you have some good videos/books to check out about the topic?
As for the flat earth: I'm still undecided but what seems to be difficult to explain is the 24hr sun. That recent video of that team who went to "Antarctica" would have been more convincing if there weren't videos I came across showing that maybe they weren't even there.
What is some of the best evidence you've came across for a flat earth? I'm open to learning more.
b) Phonetically...hades/hade/hate. That's how ones consent to a suggested definition (deaf phonetician) "hides" ones discernment under a "hood" and tempts one to "hate" others.
Notice that Gesund-HEIT and Krank-HEIT imply ones choice in-between...that's how the god of the dead operates.
do not be afraid
Fear implies towards outcome; not/nothing/nihilo implies ones de-nial of perceivable origin for suggested outcome.
In short...holding onto "not" implies being afraid of letting go.
Fun fact: These are all retarded arguments that have been dealt with countless times even on this board.
If you knew anything about Church history you'd know how the Church fathers calculated the date of birth of Christ through knowledge of the jewish holidays referenced in scripture (St John Chrysostom also tells us Christians already celebrated the birth of Christ at that time during the 3rd c). It doesn't follow that because Christ happened to be born at that time somehow that proves the pagan origin of the celebration.
Did the Church "baptize" pagan celebrations winning over pagans who found it easier to convert while retaining some semblance to their traditions? Yes. But it's still the pagan celebration becoming the Christian one and not the other way around which you assume just because some of the pagan ones (like Saturnalia) are more ancient - that doesn't follow.
Many pagans celebrated the winter solstice because they worshiped the sun. The argument is usually about the Roman celebration of Sol Invictus, which was instantiated by Aurelian in the 3rd c to counter the rising tide of Christians celebrating Christmas. Saturnalia took place between 17-23 December so it doesn't even overlap with Christmas. There are literally no similarities with Christmas, idk how anyone with a brain could use that argument.
You've got a theory and you pull "evidence" from your ass to support it. This is dumb. I can proof any claim that way. And I've got news for you - Santa Claus is a capitalistic invention and proves nothing about Christianity. People are controlled via many things besides religion. One of them being the bullshit you repeat here. The only thing that matters is the truth.
I see. One thing I have heard about Mormonism, but never really looked into, was that its origins and temple rites are Masonic in nature. What do you think about that?
There isn't any scholarship to back up your statements. And your 1st assertion is a logical falacy. (It's like saying since we say Hell in English we actually mean Norse Hel. Or that Good Friday actually means Good Freya's Day because Christianity is actually Norse)
A natural state of mind (statement) implies motion...choosing to hold onto something implies an artificial state of mind. Few suggest meaning within a scholastic environment to tempt many to ignore natural for artificial.
your 1st assertion is a logical falacy
a) Circular logic is based on one holding onto a suggested side, which then turns one within conflicts of reason against anyone choosing the opposite.
The "sert" within assert implies serere - "to join together"...few tempt many to consent to a suggested side, which then asserts them within a conflict of reason against each other.
b) As for falacy/fal - "to fall"...only during fall (inception towards death) can one rise (life).
Few suggest fallacies to tempt many into continuously failing to assert anything artificial during the natural fall...a fall which is being ignored for reasoning about failure.
It's like saying since we say Hell in English we actually mean Norse Hel.
One can only say (artificial) during sound (natural), so "since" implies the momentum of sound, while "mean" implies those within saying things to each other in ignorance of sound, thereby tempting each other to hold onto artifice.
Therefore...since sound moves forwards; artificial saying can be traced backwards from HELL to HEL to EL aka god aka all, hence sound/sanus - "entire/whole/unbroken" also implying all for each one within.
actually means
Being implies potential (life) within actual (inception towards death)...few suggest meaning to tempt consenting many to hold onto it, reason against each other over it, and thereby diminish each ones potential to grow.
Christianity is actually
a) Actual WAS before potential can suggest to each other what IS.
b) Christianity/christen - "to anoint" implies each anointed one coming into being through the birth-channel aka being anointed through oil/all.
norse
Being implies in-between N(orth) E(east) W(est) S(outh) aka at center (ones perception) of circumference (all perceivable).
Few suggest NEWS to tempt many from center into circumference. Why? So that few can erect self at center, while circumcising many from circumference.
But I thought oil is dinosaur juice. D. Rockefeller wouldn't lie to us, right?
OP, this video pushes the same narrative, but instead of dinosaurs it's now algae and plankton that form oil through a mysterious process taking millions of years. It also means we still could consume more oil than is produced by that process, meaning peak oil could still be valid. You're poisoning the well with this vsauce goober.
Here's the true story of oil told by an insider: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSff0pwc1Xc&t
He mentions that it went from a lubricant to a fuel, but humans have been using oil for thousands of years for all sorts of things, including fuel.
I know egyptians used bitumen to make airtight seals, like on the jars they would use to preserve animals, like birds.
Also, if it was so easily available, I dont think saudia arabia would have trillions of dollars in profit, how does that help the rockefellers? Im sure if he thought it was easy to take their shit, he would have done it.
He does touch on a key point about it being called "fossil" fuels, and I admit I dont know the reasoning behind that, but he does explain that its mostly made up of hydrogen carbon and oxygen, which all living things on earth are made up of.
I dont agree that its as abundant as water, and even it is, pumping it out of the ground is prolly causing alot of earthquakes and sinkholes. It would also be something else if its like final fantasy 7, and its the "blood" of the planet.
Where do I think it comes from?
https://www.plasticstoday.com/materials/sorry-folks-oil-does-not-come-from-dinosaurs
Like the person in your video touches on, its biomass. Now this article explains it away as some natural cycle of algae and vegetation.
But when I read that adam and eve story by chan, lmao. It connected for sure.
www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/cia-rdp79b00752a000300070001-8.pdf
Page 4 of the actual story (seems to be more stuff in this pdf now.)
o_O wouldnt it be ironic in a million years some new form of human is sucking our death juices dry LMAO.
I believe it too, my dad used to say how burning wood releases all the energy that it collected from the sun during its time alive, I dont see why humans, or other living beings would be any different.
Oil in the Middle East wasn’t discovered until later, in the mid 20th century. Rockefeller probably believed he could hold a monopoly at the time.
First you have to understand the dinosaurs never existed. This is super hard because obviously we've been programmed to believe in the museums and the things that we've seen. We don't believe that it's possible to subvert an entire branch of science called paleontology. But it is.
The way that you can know this is by looking at the curvature of the Earth. When you can't find that curvature you'll have to admit that the theory of this place being a globe that's billions of years old is no longer a valid theory. Then you can start questioning the possibility that dinosaurs are also not real. Then you start to see how easily it was to convince everybody that old decomposing things could equate to dinosaurs and thus making the existence of dinosaurs seem more real.
With what I know now, I wouldn't disagree that dinosaurs didn't exist.
Do you have some good videos/books to check out about the topic?
As for the flat earth: I'm still undecided but what seems to be difficult to explain is the 24hr sun. That recent video of that team who went to "Antarctica" would have been more convincing if there weren't videos I came across showing that maybe they weren't even there.
What is some of the best evidence you've came across for a flat earth? I'm open to learning more.
You sir, are an undereducated charlatan and should sit in the corner until you die
The term "Hades" is a modern translation of the original languages and is not a reference to greek myths.
Christmas and its origins, alleged or legit, is a side issue. Not a very big deal. And yes, worLdliness is bad, be " not OF the world".
That verse is just discussing people cutting down a tree for idolatrous reasons. Most people are not worshipping any trees on Dec. 25 these days.
Exactly. do not be afraid of them!
a) Hades/haidēs/a-idein/weid - "to see"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/Hades#etymonline_v_1364
Seeing implies ones perception within all perceivable, hence each person (had) within way (haidus)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/hade#etymonline_v_34048
b) Phonetically...hades/hade/hate. That's how ones consent to a suggested definition (deaf phonetician) "hides" ones discernment under a "hood" and tempts one to "hate" others.
Notice that Gesund-HEIT and Krank-HEIT imply ones choice in-between...that's how the god of the dead operates.
Fear implies towards outcome; not/nothing/nihilo implies ones de-nial of perceivable origin for suggested outcome.
In short...holding onto "not" implies being afraid of letting go.
Fun fact: These are all retarded arguments that have been dealt with countless times even on this board.
If you knew anything about Church history you'd know how the Church fathers calculated the date of birth of Christ through knowledge of the jewish holidays referenced in scripture (St John Chrysostom also tells us Christians already celebrated the birth of Christ at that time during the 3rd c). It doesn't follow that because Christ happened to be born at that time somehow that proves the pagan origin of the celebration.
Did the Church "baptize" pagan celebrations winning over pagans who found it easier to convert while retaining some semblance to their traditions? Yes. But it's still the pagan celebration becoming the Christian one and not the other way around which you assume just because some of the pagan ones (like Saturnalia) are more ancient - that doesn't follow.
Many pagans celebrated the winter solstice because they worshiped the sun. The argument is usually about the Roman celebration of Sol Invictus, which was instantiated by Aurelian in the 3rd c to counter the rising tide of Christians celebrating Christmas. Saturnalia took place between 17-23 December so it doesn't even overlap with Christmas. There are literally no similarities with Christmas, idk how anyone with a brain could use that argument.
Don't bother...OP is a mentally ill Troll...
woah, dude
illuminate = confirmed mind = blown
You've got a theory and you pull "evidence" from your ass to support it. This is dumb. I can proof any claim that way. And I've got news for you - Santa Claus is a capitalistic invention and proves nothing about Christianity. People are controlled via many things besides religion. One of them being the bullshit you repeat here. The only thing that matters is the truth.
Not sure if you're an atheist or a really low-church protestant...
I see. One thing I have heard about Mormonism, but never really looked into, was that its origins and temple rites are Masonic in nature. What do you think about that?
Everything you just said ... was wrong...
Billy Carson fans are funny lol.
Who?
There isn't any scholarship to back up your statements. And your 1st assertion is a logical falacy. (It's like saying since we say Hell in English we actually mean Norse Hel. Or that Good Friday actually means Good Freya's Day because Christianity is actually Norse)
Scholar/school/segh - "to hold"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/school#etymonline_v_22907
A natural state of mind (statement) implies motion...choosing to hold onto something implies an artificial state of mind. Few suggest meaning within a scholastic environment to tempt many to ignore natural for artificial.
a) Circular logic is based on one holding onto a suggested side, which then turns one within conflicts of reason against anyone choosing the opposite.
The "sert" within assert implies serere - "to join together"...few tempt many to consent to a suggested side, which then asserts them within a conflict of reason against each other.
b) As for falacy/fal - "to fall"...only during fall (inception towards death) can one rise (life).
Few suggest fallacies to tempt many into continuously failing to assert anything artificial during the natural fall...a fall which is being ignored for reasoning about failure.
One can only say (artificial) during sound (natural), so "since" implies the momentum of sound, while "mean" implies those within saying things to each other in ignorance of sound, thereby tempting each other to hold onto artifice.
Therefore...since sound moves forwards; artificial saying can be traced backwards from HELL to HEL to EL aka god aka all, hence sound/sanus - "entire/whole/unbroken" also implying all for each one within.
Being implies potential (life) within actual (inception towards death)...few suggest meaning to tempt consenting many to hold onto it, reason against each other over it, and thereby diminish each ones potential to grow.
a) Actual WAS before potential can suggest to each other what IS.
b) Christianity/christen - "to anoint" implies each anointed one coming into being through the birth-channel aka being anointed through oil/all.
Being implies in-between N(orth) E(east) W(est) S(outh) aka at center (ones perception) of circumference (all perceivable).
Few suggest NEWS to tempt many from center into circumference. Why? So that few can erect self at center, while circumcising many from circumference.