........Nasa/Griffin LYING about Public Support for Moon/Mars Mission!

crude oil manipulation of price some hypotheses new falls and crack

SELLING CRUDE OIL at COST PRICE, Manipulation of the price? Some hypotheses

Manipulation of the price? Some hypotheses.


While the barrel seems is stopped around 59,5 $, it is continued to whisper,
between the other motivations, than the reduction of the price it is due to
manipulations of the USA government in sight of the elections of November.

Reasonable hypothesis, says Jeff Vail , an intelligence analyst American
with blog a a lot interesting on energetic arguments. But little supported
from facts: we try instead elaborating some theories on as such manipulation
can be put in practical.

Here then the five hypotheses of Jeff:


Political 1-Pressione on a Government agency in order to stop order
regulations momentarily acclimatizes them that they block meaningful amounts
of oil. As an example, to concur with the BP of procrastinare the
riparazione/rimpiazzo of the famous pipeline of Prudhoe Bay... and is just
what it is happening : the BP will use "varying" for more bypassare the
points corroded of the oil pipe-line guaranteeing others 400,000 barrels
within October.

2- political Pressure on a Government agency in order to accelerate the
putting in commerce of diesel engine to low sulfur content. This movement
forces the refineries to momentarily block to the diesel engine production,
diverting the oil in the benzine production... and is just what it is
happening : from the 1 July the diesel oil production is obligatory to low
sulfur content.

3- political Pressure on a Government agency in order to change disowned
noticille that they regulate the trading of the oil. As an example, reducing
the contract number that the great investor can stop, forcing them to market
the surplus to being made to come down the price... and it is just what it
is happening : in federal base to one demanded this limit it has been
recently reduced.

4- political Pressure on a producing foreign Country in order to implement
the added one of etanolo to the benzine, being forced therefore the home
market of that Country to slow down the oil use is in order to adapt itself
to the new technology that for the higher price, and putting therefore
greater oil on the market... and is just what it is happening , just to the
Nigeria.

5- Aumentare the production from the Iraq. But siccome it is an operation
difficult in presence of attacks of the guerrilla, enough to concur with
"pirati" of the oil, many assets in Iraq, to export the product in the
Countries limitrofi remaining without to pay ... and is just what it is
happening : Navy American has been as soon as replaced most insufficient
Navy irachena in the control of the Gulf and the activities of clandestine
export of the oil, concurring an increase very 200,000 barrels from the
Iraq.


And you, have other hypotheses on as the manipulation of the price happens?


THANKS OPEC for the new CRACK
"jonathan" ha scritto nel messaggio
. ..


Gallup Organization issues unusual 'video rebuttal' to Griffin's
claim of public support for Moon/Mars missions.
.... link below



How many times have we heard Nasa and Griffin claim that
some 3/4ths of the public support going back to the
Moon and Mars?

They poll they quote was commissioned by the
Coalition for Space Exploration, which is a lobbyist
front for the following corporations.
http://www.spacecoalition.com/home.html

Member companies

ATK Thiokol
The Boeing Company
Lockheed Martin
Northrop Grumman
United Space Alliance
Space Foundation
Aerojet
Analytical Graphics, Inc.
Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp.
California Space Authority
Delaware North Parks Services
Florida Space Authority
Hamilton Sundstrand
Honeywell
National Space Society
Moog
Pratt & Whitney
Raytheon


The USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll question they used follows.


In January 2004, a new plan or goal for space exploration was announced.
The plan includes a stepping-stone approach to return the space shuttle
to flight, complete assembly of the space station, build a replacement
for the shuttle, go back to the Moon, and then on to Mars and beyond.
If NASA's new budget did not exceed one percent of the federal
budget, to what extent would you support or oppose this new
plan for space exploration?
http://www.spacepolitics.com/archives/000597.html


To disagree with this statement, one would have to oppose
ever flying the shuttle again, oppose completing the ISS
oppose a shuttle replacement, support an 'all at once' approach
and support higher Nasa budgets.

It's difficult to imagine a more biased or loaded poll question.

Yet Griffin cites this poll to Congress.


"Recent and very specific public opinion surveys do in fact show a
broad consensus in support of our new goals in space. Assuming
that funding levels for NASA do not exceed one percent of the budget
- and we should be so fortunate - fully three-fourths of the American
people support the goals of the Vision.
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...ffins_s_1.html



"Have you stopped beating your wife ...questions"
....Mike Griffin



In an rare rebuttal of Griffin's use of this biased poll, Gallup issued
this video reponse showing the true level of public support
for the Vision.
http://www.galluppoll.com/videoArchive/?ci=17596&pg=

I would have to agree with Griffin's statement in the video
that 'you can get almost any answer you like' with polls
in how they are worded. But it should be clear that it's Nasa
and Griffin that are playing the word game, and
loose with the truth.

To go from 75% support to 40% can't be called a generous
spin, it has to called what it is.

A bald faced lie.

Nasa still, a year later, quotes the original poll written by the
consortium that is pushing the Vision on the
American taxpayers.

If we can't trust Nasa to tell us the truth, they shouldn't
be trusted with our future, let alone our tax dollars.


Jonathan

s

"Mr. Energy" wrote in message
.. .
crude oil manipulation of price some hypotheses new falls and crack

Complete, coherent sentences would serve you better in broadcasting your
message.

The USE of ALL CAPS is the SURE SIGN of a KOOK.

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:59:00 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Scott
Hedrick" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Mr. Energy" wrote in message
. ..
crude oil manipulation of price some hypotheses new falls and crack

Complete, coherent sentences would serve you better in broadcasting your
message.

The USE of ALL CAPS is the SURE SIGN of a KOOK.

Reinforced by the screen name "Mr. Energy."

Gallup Organization issues unusual 'video rebuttal' to Griffin's
claim of public support for Moon/Mars missions.
.... link below



How many times have we heard Nasa and Griffin claim that
some 3/4ths of the public support going back to the
Moon and Mars?

They poll they quote was commissioned by the
Coalition for Space Exploration, which is a lobbyist
front for the following corporations.
http://www.spacecoalition.com/home.html

Member companies

ATK Thiokol
The Boeing Company
Lockheed Martin
Northrop Grumman
United Space Alliance
Space Foundation
Aerojet
Analytical Graphics, Inc.
Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp.
California Space Authority
Delaware North Parks Services
Florida Space Authority
Hamilton Sundstrand
Honeywell
National Space Society
Moog
Pratt & Whitney
Raytheon


The USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll question they used follows.


In January 2004, a new plan or goal for space exploration was announced.
The plan includes a stepping-stone approach to return the space shuttle
to flight, complete assembly of the space station, build a replacement
for the shuttle, go back to the Moon, and then on to Mars and beyond.
If NASA's new budget did not exceed one percent of the federal
budget, to what extent would you support or oppose this new
plan for space exploration?
http://www.spacepolitics.com/archives/000597.html


To disagree with this statement, one would have to oppose
ever flying the shuttle again, oppose completing the ISS
oppose a shuttle replacement, support an 'all at once' approach
and support higher Nasa budgets.

It's difficult to imagine a more biased or loaded poll question.

Yet Griffin cites this poll to Congress.


"Recent and very specific public opinion surveys do in fact show a
broad consensus in support of our new goals in space. Assuming
that funding levels for NASA do not exceed one percent of the budget
- and we should be so fortunate - fully three-fourths of the American
people support the goals of the Vision.
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...ffins_s_1.html



"Have you stopped beating your wife ...questions"
....Mike Griffin



In an rare rebuttal of Griffin's use of this biased poll, Gallup issued
this video reponse showing the true level of public support
for the Vision.
http://www.galluppoll.com/videoArchive/?ci=17596&pg=

I would have to agree with Griffin's statement in the video
that 'you can get almost any answer you like' with polls
in how they are worded. But it should be clear that it's Nasa
and Griffin that are playing the word game, and
loose with the truth.

To go from 75% support to 40% can't be called a generous
spin, it has to called what it is.

A bald faced lie.

Nasa still, a year later, quotes the original poll written by the
consortium that is pushing the Vision on the
American taxpayers.

If we can't trust Nasa to tell us the truth, they shouldn't
be trusted with our future, let alone our tax dollars.


Jonathan

s