Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Illinois quake
- Rick, im inna rush, gotta scoot.
But Google THIS!! ah ah!
Petroleum oil is NOT a fossil substance. Russian and
many American geologists are beginning to stand up
against a brick wall of American scientific dogma
(same as diffusionists battle against collegiate
Historians) but with proof that oil is a mineral,
earth-derived, geo-created substance, not an organic
residue. It is not endless, but not nearly so 'finite'
as a 'non-renewable' resource, as once thought. The
earth is busy, somewhere, making more right now as we
speak. I'm not clear at all about the details,
Now COAL is organic. But not Petrol, according to
cutting edge technology (American POV) but having well
established acceptance in Russian science circles.
Can anyone surf for that?
Whizzin out the door...
--- Rick Osmon <ozman@...> wrote:
> The Wabash Fault Zone is a hodgepodge ofhttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Precolumbian_Inscriptions/message/108\
> intersecting fault lines. I've
> talked to several geology majors and none could
> explain how this
> occurred. Yes, the largest is right along the river.
> The zone extends to
> intersect the main fault and one of the secondary
> faults of New Madrid,
> under far western Kentucky, and towards central
> The only similar fault system I've been able to
> identify is under the
> southern end of the Arabian Peninsula and is also
> similar in its level
> of activity.
> Both areas are known for natural gas deposits and
> I've often wondered if
> the multiple fault lines are the result of a
> collapse of the gas dome
> after a major venting. Geologists usually attribute
> the "sand blows" or
> "sand volcanoes
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_volcano> " to
> seismic events, but a venting might have the same
> effect. The photo in
> the link is also close to the North Sea gas dome.
> There is also the question of: If petroleum was
> formed from diatoms, why
> is it always below the limestone dome? I think these
> things are probably
> all closely related, but I'm not the geologist.
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org,
> <puppet@...> wrote:
> > Most of you probably know by now, but the Illinois
> quake was along the
> > Wabash Valley Fault Line. This is along the
> Wabash River, which forms
> > the lower 1/3 of the Illinois-Indiana border.
> > As explained much better than is often done on
> CNN, with great maps,
> > Wabash Valley system appears to be an extension of
> the New Madrid
> > system, but no fault lines were shown mapped
> across the center of
> > southern Illinois. Both systems have fault lines
> running SW-to-NE.
> > The epicenter was about 26 miles SW of Vincennes,
> Indiana, and 6 miles
> > east of Bone Gap, IL. I've never heard of Bone
> Gap. Olney is 22
> > NNW of the epicenter.
> > . . . . Steve
> > --- In email@example.com,
> > beldingenglish@ wrote:
> > All,
> > Ancient Waterways member and engineer Vince
> Barrows from Illinois
> > St. Louis sent the following response to host
> Mike White at the
> > PreColumbian Inscriptions site yesterday (see
> other posts at this
> > excellent epigraphy group):
> > \06
> > 806
> > Does anyone know if the earthquake was along the
> Madrid fault?
> > Rick Osman and his wife felt the quake in SW
> Indiana; my son and his
> > wife did too near Chicago. And several people
> emailed to ask how the
> > affected Burrows Cave excavations near Olney.
> Wayne had said in an
> > earlier phone conversation they are waiting for
> flood levels to
> > before proceeding further. John White of Midwest
> Epigraphic Society
> > emailed also on Friday that Wayne May was heading
> for Ohio to speak
> > (yesterday) before one of the groups there.
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
- Chris -
Hi. It seems you are talking about the abiogenic theory of oil. See message #530 below. I was excited about it and am into it as much as you seem to be.
I would love it if your comment about a lot of scientists being behind it were true. I haven't yet found anything but scorn at the theory, at least in U.S. circles. Whatever you have found, point me to it.
BTW, this is for the most part an off-topic post, as was my own for the most part. I was rsponding to a comment by Rick about oil being UNDER domes. If you want to carry this discussion via email, my address is shown. (I assume others won't want this cluttering up the forum.)
In the meantime, I can recommend Thomas Gold's The Deep, Hot Biosphere .
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Chris Patenaude <yacrispyubetcha@...> wrote:
> Rick, im inna rush, gotta scoot.
> But Google THIS!! ah ah!
> Petroleum oil is NOT a fossil substance. Russian and
> many American geologists are beginning to stand up
> against a brick wall of American scientific dogma
> (same as diffusionists battle against collegiate
> Historians) but with proof that oil is a mineral,
> earth-derived, geo-created substance, not an organic
> residue. It is not endless, but not nearly so 'finite'
> as a 'non-renewable' resource, as once thought. The
> earth is busy, somewhere, making more right now as we
> speak. I'm not clear at all about the details,
> Now COAL is organic. But not Petrol, according to
> cutting edge technology (American POV) but having well
> established acceptance in Russian science circles.
> Can anyone surf for that?
> Whizzin out the door...