*UPDATE* BP has NEVER shown us the main leak! Until now...

reply to post by AquaTim84


It is most certainly the same leak location. If you compare the white paint/scratch marks on the BOP (or whatever that thing is), you can see they match up. The CNN feed is just zoomed in more than the other feed.

In the left feed, the wrench is being held vertically by the ROV arm, and is right in the middle of the screen. The wrench appears to be wrapped in some brown fabric or something, but you can see the shiny end of the wrench at the very top center of the feed. You should have been able to see the wrench in the CNN feed, and it would have been located immediately to the left of the "NO AUDIO" blue bar. Again, compare the paint chip locations between the two images and you will see.

EDIT:
For those of you who are (understandably) nervous about saving/opening a file from a random person, I have placed the image in a regular html page.
LINK
But again, please dont repeatedly load this page, it kills my badwidth. If you think you may want to view this image more than once, when it finishes loading, right click and save the image to your hard drive so you may view it multiple times without maxing out my internet connection lol.


[edit on 28-5-2010 by anonymous lurker]

reply to post by seamus



excellent


[edit on 28-5-2010 by soleprobe]

[edit on 28-5-2010 by soleprobe]

[edit on 28-5-2010 by soleprobe]

Yesterday evening in france they said it was not a complete failure, nevertheless i m still seeing a lot of pressure pushing a lot of stuff in the live feed. -_-
Either the feed is not live or they lie on their success.

Hmm i have a sudden lust for fresh fish of any kind. fast before they kill'emall !

Originally posted by seamus

Originally posted by PuterMan
[...]and most of you 'armchair experts' should remember that if you did not love your oil based economies so much then none of this would be necessary and there would be no spill.

We are all as much to blame for this as the oil companies because of our demand

This is pure Bullcr*p. We have had free energy technology since the days of Nathan Stubblefield and Nikola Tesla (Not to mention Edwin V. Gray). We have had 100mpg carburetors since Charles Pogue invented the vaporizing carburetor in the 30s. Daniel Dingell of the Philippines was recently bought off from his water fuel project. Stanley Meyer was assassinated while celebrating the signing of an agreement with a manufacturer for HIS water fuel system. The undisputable fact is that the powers that be rely upon scarcity of energy in order to control the populace.

Ask yourself: Qui bene?

Or are you here to dispense guilt upon the common man who wants to feed and house his family in peace?

Whilst it is possible that these inventions exist/ed you have not provided any sources for your statement and as I shall demonstrate the premise of your refutation has a few problems..

Pogue, Charles:

Pogue went overnight from impoverished inventor to the manager of a successful factory making oil filters for the motor industry. Ever since, suspicion has lingered that oil companies and car manufacturers colluded to bury Pogue’s invention.

Source

Is this a sample of a common man wanting to better the world, or yet another person satisfying their own avarice? It is not even certain that the device worked. Here is a further extract from the same report.

Engineers who have tried in the past to build a carburetor using Pogue’s theories have found the results less than satisfactory. Charles Friend, of Canada’s National Research Council, told Marketplace, a consumer affairs programme: "You can get fantastic mileage if you're prepared to de-rate the vehicle to a point where, for example, it might take you ten minutes to accelerate from 0 to 30 miles an hour."

Here is a further paper which debunks that carburetor.

Stubblefield, Nathan:

A history of Nathan Stubblefield

I have studied Earth Coils in some depth recently and find them fascinating. Yes they are a source of 'free' electricity, but basically not a commercially viable quantity, nor really even a domestically viable alternative energy source if you wish to maintain a modern lifestyle.

I assume however that you have one of these since you are aware of them?

Tessla, Nicola:

Just one link of hundreds about this amazing man, many of whose inventions have shaped the world as we know it, but many of which never came to fruition. It would be a life's work to ascertain the exact reasons for that.

This is a piece of text from this PDF

It's remarkable to me, that with all of the attention given to Nikola Tesla in the last few years, I have not heard any mention of this aspect of his work. Volumes have been written on so-called "free energy" devices, wherein the would-be inventors are searching in vain for a ubiquitously present, inexhaustible source of energy from which their machines may draw.

Could it be that this source of energy actually does not exist, at least in useable quantities? Is this why we need oil?

Gray, Edwin V, Snr:

This is a brief history

Note that patents have expired. Why have they not been taken up?

There are all sorts of tales in this publication and it would seem that an individuals greed has got in the way again, and now yet another greedy individual - the nephew - is about to pop out of the woodwork again.

Conveniently when the Feds supposedly took 5 of the motors, they did not take the circuit boards, and again conveniently the nephew destroyed them. Also very conveniently now there appears to be interest he appears but wishes to remain incognito. Hmm!

One statement by the author of that document is very true:

If someone is of a mind to bilk billions in that process, they are of the wrong mindset, and the universe will spew them out, bringing their intentions to naught. Case in point: EV Gray.

Dingell, Daniel:

Two links here His own site and Wikipedia

Suffice it to say that you should read the articles and make your own mind up. Bought off? No I don't think so if the evidence presented is true.

Meyer, Stanley:

Oh dear, it would seem we have yet another Charlatan.

If the device worked as specified, it would violate both the first and second laws of thermodynamics, allowing operation as a perpetual motion machine.[2] Meyer's claims about his "Water Fuel Cell" and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent by an Ohio court in 1996.

Source

You stated:

The undisputable fact is that the powers that be rely upon scarcity of energy in order to control the populace.

I see no detailed evidence for this in this statement since it would seem that most of the inventions upon which you are pinning your refutation of my comment are in fact not viable.

Or are you here to dispense guilt upon the common man who wants to feed and house his family in peace?

I am not dispensing guilt, but the facts of the matter are that there many ways in which we can as individuals reduce some of our dependence upon oil. It is our choice to have many electrical devices, including the computers we are using to discuss this, all of which require energy. Yes there are some alternative energy sources, most notably tidal (not wave) power. Wave and wind are too variable to be viable as pure sources and wind power is the most expensive. Having worked for an electricity generating company I am very aware of the fact that wind power only works where there is a fossil fuel based power system to back it up, rather like the 'communist' collectives that can only survive in a capitalist environment.

The simple fact of the matter is that the common man, which includes me, in wishing to feed and house his family in peace as you put it, depends upon the very energy source that you are knocking the producers of.

We like our holidays, our cars and food out of season rather than locally grown; our televisions, fridges, freezers; our tarmaced roads and our railways; our heating and lighting and in some countries air conditioning. All I am saying, and I stand by that, is that yes we do all bear some weight of the responsibility for the disaster if we choose to live our lives making use of these comforts all of which depend upon oil.

Of course if you have denied ALL the products of an oil based economy then I have got you wrong and of course apologise.

This is pure Bullcr*p

That fact is not Bullcr*p

Originally posted by soleprobe
reply to post by seamus

 

excellent

Maybe not quite so excellent huh?

[edit on 29/5/2010 by PuterMan]

Ok guys, I think I finally have some screenshots that show the live feeds are not actually live! However, these images are on my server at home, so once they load please save them to your computer. My internet connection has a max upload speed of only 50 Kbps, so if you repeatedly open up these links it will prevent others from seeing the images. Also, I will eventually remove them from my server, making them no longer available.

These are full size screenshots (1280 x 800) and take a while to load. I chose not to compress them because some of the numbers on the images are already hard to read.

Image #1

In this image you can see the WKRG.com live oil spill cam playing windowed in quicktime player. Or at least I think its quicktime player. Since its not full screen, you can also see that the feed can be paused, fast forwarded, restarted, etc. with the buttons. There is also a progress bar showing how close to the end of the clip you are.

Image #2

In image number two, WKRG.com is still having computer issues and quicktime keeps dropping out of full screen mode. Note that the progress bar has moved a little bit further to the right. At this time, I also opened up the PBS newshour live feed, which is on the right half of the screen. The WKRG.com feed and the PBS newshour feed both have timestamps that match with regards to what was happening on screen, but the WKRG.com feed was playing about 15 seconds ahead of the PBS feed.

Image #3

In image number 3, the WKRG feed turns black but appears to be still playing. I could not make out what numbers were showing for time elapsed, but they kept changing even though the feed was black. This image was taken immediately after the video switched to black, so the PBS feed has not gone out yet.

Image #4

Shortly after the WKRG video went black, a mouse cursor appeared and closed quicktime. The PBS feed was paused right before it went black (which is made obvious by the really big "play" symbol at the bottom center of the video lol).

Image #5

After a while (before image number 5 was taken) a still image filled the WKRG screen. Both feeds are not moving at this point. If the feed had suddenly stopped, you would expect both "live" feeds to be stuck at the same exact place! Here you can see the feeds supposedly frozen, but showing slightly different images!

Image #6

21 minutes later, they are still showing the same "frozen" image. Earlier I had noticed that the PBS feed said "Live 02:36:02". It was not yet 2:36 in the morning, so I thought perhaps the feed would resume at that time. I believed the feed was frozen so that people would close the websites or stop paying attention. I waited patiently, staring at the screen. I also pulled up the official US pacific time.

Image #7

What happened next went fairly quickly, and unfortunately I missed one of the most important moments. A mouse cursor appeared and the PBS video player was closed. Something above the top edge of the screen was clicked, and two options appeared. I forgot what the first option was, but the second option was "open". The cursor clicked open. I accidentally hit scroll lock instead of print screen , so I dont have a picture of that. The video player appeared mostly off screen to the left, but was still partially visible. Since there want much to see, I decided to not take a screenshot so I wouldn't miss anything. It stayed there for about 10 seconds, then was quickly moved to the center of the main screen. And thats when this image was taken.

Continued...

Bad news guys!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by carewemust


Damn I guess you were right after all.

Sorry about that man guess I'm the crazy one.

www.abovetopsecret.com

In image 7, you can see the faded player controls. The controls were visible while the player was being dragged to the center of the screen, but they very quickly faded out when the drag stopped. I just barely got the screenshot in time, so the player controls are faded out most of the way. But you can see there is a time elapsed and a time remaining. Now I may be incorrect here, but I would think that a live streaming feed wouldn't have a specified point at which the video stops. I would expect it to continue on until the feed is ended by BP, and if it is truly live, the video player should not know when the end of the feed will occur. The same argument could be made about the WKRG feed. There was a progress bar, and the video player knew how close to the end of the video it was.

Also, if this were a live video, I would expect the WKRG screen to start playing the same thing thing as the PBS feed. However, that assumes that BP is only providing one feed. If BP provides multiple video streams, then I could see how PBS would connect to a different stream when the current one goes bad (and WKRG might not be paying attention). However, that does not explain the progress bars, or how the same feed could be "frozen" on different images.

Image #8

I wanted to stay up later and see what the WKRG screen would do, but I was too tired. In this image, you can see that PBS has maximized the player so the title bar/file name is hidden. The WKRG feed still has that same image. I couldn't stay awake much longer so I went to sleep after I took this image.

It would be interesting to compare the time delay between these two feeds at a later date. When I was viewing the videos, there was around a 15 second delay between the two feeds. If, at a later date, there is a big difference between these two video feed's lag time, then that might be further evidence of foul play...

EDIT: Oops...the link in my post at the top of this page should have been:
LINK

[edit on 29-5-2010 by anonymous lurker]

Just an opinion here, but there are sooo damn many threads about this now. Alot of good information is being overlooked. Do we have to start a new thread everytime there is an update. This is becoming an asinine distraction.

The town of Centralia, PA has been burning for over 40 years and will burn for the next 250+ years, government and the bureaucracy and all the politics is what ruined Centralia and couldnt stop it.

I just hope this oil leak isn't the next Centralia fiasco. Imagine 40+ year oil leak like the 40+ year coal fire.

strange thing is government gave up on centralia and stopped attempts to stop the fire, so all this enviromental politics is crap since thats a huge blow 40+ years of sulfure, methane, pentane, co2, etc all pumping into atmosphere

reply to post by PuterMan


You have demonstrated an amazing ability to quote web sources.

Your debunking skills are thoroughly whelming.

My info on Dingell came from a Filipino who was following the story up close, and was very sad to see it happen.

My info on Stubblefield is anecdotal, but that's all you will ever get when creeps like the ones who run the patent office start stamping your feet and insisting that open systems are actually closed systems (which are the only ones to which the Holy Second Law of Thermodynamics, as it is commonly parroted to smear free energy projects, apply)

Tesla was clearly getting overunity with his Wardenclyffe and Colo. Springs projects. But that fact will never be taught in schools (parrot aviaries), just like the fact that Tesla invented radio, and Stubblefield invented wireless transmission.

You call Meyer a charlatan based on the opinions of other men like yourself. How convenient, you didn't even have to think!

I'm really not interested in trying to out-volume the Puter Man, as his mind is made up, and his position invincible.


In parting,
I ask you, what burns more efficiently, droplets of fuel, or vapor? (if you know anything at all, there is only one possible answer to that question)


[edit on 29-5-2010 by seamus]

I believe the answer to the question of why BP will fight to thier last barrel of oil before they release the true nature of the oil flow volume is found in the following excerpt is taken from AP's website.

AP NEWS - GULF OIL SPILL LOW ESTIMATES

"Nelson said that he believes BP has delayed release of everything from the actual flow rate to the videos because of a federal law that allows the government to seek penalties of $1,000 to $4,300 per barrel — 42 gallons — of oil spilled in U.S. waters. "And so naturally they want to minimize what people were thinking they were going to spill.""

The article then goes on to mention.

"A team of scientists from the government and academia said Thursday that the leak is really spewing somewhere between 500,000 and a million gallons a day."

Let's do some simple math.

Lowball $$$ BP Penalty/Fine based on $1000 p/barrel min
500,000 gallons = roughly 11,904 barrels
11,904 barrells x 40 days x $1000 = $476,160,000 US Dollars

1,000,000 gallons = roughly 23,809 barrels
23,809 barrels x 40 days x $1000 = $952,360,000

Max $$$ BP Penalty/Fine based on $4,300 p/barrel max
500,000 gallons = roughly 11,904 barrels
11,904 barrells x 40 days x $4,300 = $2,047,488,000

1,000,000 gallons = roughly 23,809 barrels
23,809 barrels x 40 days x $4,300 = $4,095,148,000

As we know, these numbers are increasing every second. These fines in theory would be added on top of what ever the total clean up bill would be. If our dearly beloved government does enact this law, low balling the penalty/fine at $1000 p/barrel would be an additional slap to our face. If this pentaly/fine is not administered at all we will see just how cozy BP and the Administration are. Nothing like getting screwed without the courtesy of a reach around.

There is nothing like black in full sunlight. The gulf is warming big time. Its gonna be a very hot and stormy summer for a lot of the US.

POSSIBLE REMEDY TO BP OIL LEAK ?

Is it not possible sinking succesively smaller (=less diameter) and smaller
steel tubes inside present tube in the well? At the same time "gluing" them
to surrounding tube. Resulting in a layered steel tube of smaller and smaller inner flow diameter? At last a solid steel shaft is inserted in
the last most narrow cylinder. Never a very huge force would be needed
to press these units into the remaining cylindrical hole.

At least every new cylinder inserted into the wider outside, will decrease the flow - so at last hardly no oil is leaking through. Theoretically this must work.

Perhaps also possible inserting a large number of steel bars successevely
into the main tube according to the same principle. But the point using
cylinders might be possibility minimizing dead space allowing oil leaking through.

Just a layman suggestion, almost certainly already considered - but
I guess all suggestions are interesting in this critical case.

Originally posted by Marrr
Just an opinion here, but there are sooo damn many threads about this now. Alot of good information is being overlooked. Do we have to start a new thread everytime there is an update. This is becoming an asinine distraction.

Go with the flow.. yes, the pun is intended! If you have something to offer that is in line with the topic, post it. The general topic of this thread is how BP is masking the real story by showing video clips that make the gusher look small. This fits in with the low estimates of how much oil is heading to the shores.

Now, I hear that BP is enlisting the help of film director, James Cameron. I was not privy to being in on the meeting but I might suggest a guess..." Hello, Mr. Cameron. Love your movies about alter realities. Can you do us the favor of filming this and do your thing to make it look better than what it is. The whole world is watching and we are getting a little nervous. How does double the box office of Avatar sound?"

reply to post by M Grandin


Narrowing the hole will ultimately result in more force. Try it with a garden hose. Eventually the pressure will build and everything that was building up will make its way out.

That is why all these tricks that BP has tried have not worked. In 200 feet of water weight, the tricks work because there is less pressure but in 5,000 feet of water weight, it doesn't work. More weight equals more pressure. The weight of the water is pushing down on the rock plates and depending on the depth of the oil reservoir, it may eventually collapse it, forcing a big final spew. But that is years down the road.

Have you ever had to patch a water bed? If you sit on the bed while you work on the hole, you can't patch it. Common sense for laymen like you and I, is to relieve the pressure then patch. Right?

BTW: Love BP's current live feed. Can't see anything worth looking at.

reply to post by peggy m


While the solution he posted might not work, I'm starting to think, if BP really truly wants this leak to stop then it might take an idea from a "layperson" to make it happen.

Too many scientists are trying to over think this, and all we are getting is more nerd raging and more oil spilling.

I honestly have come to believe BP doesn't want to stop the spill. Last I heard, which was last week was they were siphoning up around 28,000 gallons of oil a day from the water. With a moratorium in place now about new drilling, this might be the only money they see come out of this hole for a while....

Originally posted by peggy m
reply to post by M Grandin

 

Narrowing the hole will ultimately result in more force. Try it with a garden hose. Eventually the pressure will build and everything that was building up will make its way out.

That is why all these tricks that BP has tried have not worked. In 200 feet of water weight, the tricks work because there is less pressure but in 5,000 feet of water weight, it doesn't work. More weight equals more pressure. The weight of the water is pushing down on the rock plates and depending on the depth of the oil reservoir, it may eventually collapse it, forcing a big final spew. But that is years down the road.

Have you ever had to patch a water bed? If you sit on the bed while you work on the hole, you can't patch it. Common sense for laymen like you and I, is to relieve the pressure then patch. Right?

BTW: Love BP's current live feed. Can't see anything worth looking at.

Thanks for comments! I am well aware of the effects you talk about. But I cannot agree water depth counts here regarding resulting lift of concentric steel
cylinders assembly. At least not in the sense you appear mean. It is the difference in density between steel and water (or oil/gas) that counts here. But for some reason there is an enormeously increased pressure from the gas/oil well below - very much exceeding that due to "water column" down to that depth. Maybe that pressure is heavier than any valve can stand - but probably this pressure is at least limited.

But as a layman, I guess a steel rod reaching sufficiently far down towards the well will stand that pressure by its own weight. If so, my suggestion should work at least theoretically. At least it could narrow the flow considerably and also prevent the tube assembly from being eroded down too fast - if the flow couldn't be stopped completly.






[edit on 2-6-2010 by M Grandin]

Originally posted by M Grandin

Originally posted by peggy m
reply to post by M Grandin

 

Narrowing the hole will ultimately result in more force. Try it with a garden hose. Eventually the pressure will build and everything that was building up will make its way out.

That is why all these tricks that BP has tried have not worked. In 200 feet of water weight, the tricks work because there is less pressure but in 5,000 feet of water weight, it doesn't work. More weight equals more pressure. The weight of the water is pushing down on the rock plates and depending on the depth of the oil reservoir, it may eventually collapse it, forcing a big final spew. But that is years down the road.

Have you ever had to patch a water bed? If you sit on the bed while you work on the hole, you can't patch it. Common sense for laymen like you and I, is to relieve the pressure then patch. Right?

BTW: Love BP's current live feed. Can't see anything worth looking at.

Thanks for comments! I am well aware of the effects you talk about. But I cannot agree water depth counts here regarding resulting lift of concentric steel
cylinders assembly. At least not in the sense you appear mean. It is the difference in density between steel and water (or oil/gas) that counts in that respect. But for some reason there is an enormeously increased pressure from the gas/oil well below - very much exceeding that due to "water column" down to that depth. Maybe that pressure is heavier than any valve can stand - but this pressure is at least limited.

By also adding heavy weights upon concentric steel cylinders and "closing" rod, sufficient force to stand the pressure must be possible achieve.





[edit on 2-6-2010 by M Grandin]

Best detail yet on oil spill, from BPs own site, no less.

You can see the slicks grow and move, by opening sequential pdfs.

BPs Response Maps Page.

Here's a sample: June 1 Map.

These provide lots more detail than anything else I have seen.