PSA: Top three ways to spot a hoax...

[slackmaster]

1. Beware of big promises. If something sounds too good to be true, then it probably isn't true.

2. Multiple variations of a story with varying levels of detail, but no credible source to back them up.

3. High pressure tactics, such as dire warnings that you must act NOW, otherwise a valuable opportunity will be lost.

Here's an example from today's discussions about the idea of using a nuclear explosive device to stop the oil and gas leak in the Gulf of Mexico.

"I believe the Russians did it on land, using special nukes, and only for gas well fires"

Oooh, "special" nukes. The Russians always have had a knack for engineering feats that nobody else has accomplished.

"Rumor says that the Russians did it once"

A bit dull, and not effective because it acknowledges that the story is a rumor.

"The Soviets did it a couple of times"

A couple usually means two, but there is some wiggle room. Maybe it was one, or three, but four would be right out.

"It worked for the Soviets four out of five times they tried it"

I don't even want to think about what happened that other time.

"Worked four out of five times for the Soviet Union."

Distinct from the previous one in that it attributes the 80% success rate to a country rather than its people. It does demonstrate the fluid nature of these stories. If it's been re-worded from its source material, who knows what else could have changed? Was it really four out of five attempts, or 16 our of 20? Maybe it was 17 out of 20 tries and someone felt obligated to round the ratio to an easy-to-understand single-digit thing.

"The Soviet Union did this many times."

I remember reading about a primitive tribe somewhere, that had a numbering system consisting of "one", "two", and "many". Many meant three or more. They didn't have any need for greater precision on larger sets of things.

"The Soviets did it 5 times. All on land. Last time was in 1979."

Now there's some vivid detail. An exact number, more precise of a location than most other claims, and even a specific year.

But still no source.

"I could get the Russians to explain how they did it over and over"

They're pretty tight-lipped about that sort of thing, and my Russian isn't very good so I'm not sure this works for me. But of the author of that claim has some influence with the former Soviets, maybe he can save us all.

"There's a video about them nukeing a gas well"

Ah, video "about" an event rather than "of" it. Clever, very clever.

"US's smallest nuke would be perfect to shut the well down"

Wow, we're in the presence of greatness here! One contributor who is an expert on geology, petroleum engineering, and the US nuclear weapons arsenal. Silly me, I thought the experimental "Davy Crockett" program was shut down in the 1950s or 1960s after a handful of tests showed them to be far too dangerous to the troops who would have deployed them, and therefore impractical as a tactical weapon. (Some sources do say the weapon was "deployed", but if you've ever worked with the military you probably know how little that means in terms of anyone ever intending it to be actually used.) With the availability of aircraft, the weapon turned out to be a solution in search of a problem. An interesting engineering exercise that pushed the limits of how small a bomb could actually be made.

And my favorite so far:

"It was done in America too. Somebody posted the video last week."

The earmark of the "Appeal to YouTube" fallacy. You don't even need to see the video. Just the comforting knowledge that someone says that someone else posted one somewhere is sufficient to support the claim.

HTH

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[Scuba]

1. The other way to immediately spot a hoax....

... It's being promoted by Fox News.

[RandomThoughts]

2. There are some interesting comments there. And can be about faith thoughts.

1. Beware of big promises. If something sounds too good to be true, then it probably isn't true.

Promises in themselves are interesting things, and require trust and credibility so the concept of promise does not seem to match what people should use to guide action, hence the concept of faith. Note that ideas of some peoples faith match the concept of not just thinking on promise, however with that thought, faith is not about self reward, since you really don't know. So the promise is believed by choice, not because someone is sure. It is the concept of faith, although most people of faith think on it as true, by their choice. For instance to think of heavenly reward is a best guess by choice of belief, so it really shouldn't be the deciding factor, but more what you want to be, and by that the selfishness of it being about reward goes away, or that is how I think on it.


2. Multiple variations of a story with varying levels of detail, but no credible source to back them up.


Good point, I actually found some things must be not true by finding contradictions. However there is a thing about metaphors, or stories, parts of them can be correct, while others not so much, it happens anytime a complex thing is looked at in a lower level. For instance, collapsing 3d to 2d can be easier to see something, but loses some information, however multiple views from different directions can give a 3d view even in 2d, but it still is missing information leading to some misinterpretations. So personally thinking on the topic is really difficult to find how everything should fit together, and where they don't. Much of the bad stuff is more a feeling then just contradiction, but the feeling helps warn to look for contradictions.

Also I know there are metaphors for existence in many forms, I can think on the same story with time travel, multidimensional, multi level, holodeck, matrix, and many more but all are limited understanding of concepts. And can also have contradicting elements. So at the same time that I know contradictions show some things not true, it is possible to have many metaphors of the same thing but them not all being the same or even with some contradictions by the flaws of ability to perceive, so there is that also. Meaning it is still best guess. And not being perfect sometimes many parts of stories get into ideas and thoughts.

3. High pressure tactics, such as dire warnings that you must act NOW, otherwise a valuable opportunity will be lost.

I have considered the concept of high pressure as bad, one reason I don't worry about things, and actually I don't feel any pressure that I can think of. In my view, heh, the concepts have been spoken of for centuries, and many ignored, including by me, people can act or not, and in some concepts it is more about people knowing they make a decision.

As far as acting immediately or pressure, interesting concept. I think of the pressure as an effect of inaction, and bad applied back, and more that the pressure is an exponential effect of situations that get worse when not corrected. But the most important thing about pressure, is it gets use to, so any pressure if it does have an intent to create some action, and that is debatable, would have to increase if action was not seen. So not sure on the pressure comment.


Here is an example of pressure, a house will be shaken, and what stands will stay, a paraphrase of a verse. Well that is about pressure. But it really doesn't make sense, so I decided that I would consider that comment, and the concept of pressure as not able to shake me, so nothing can be shaken. It fits the concept, and bypasses all the worry about pressure trying to shake out parts of dreams. Plus I don't have some things that have never been shaken away, so not sure about that concept. But I still try to think and feel on things that get a person to think if there thoughts and feelings are correct.



The earmark of the "Appeal to YouTube" fallacy. You don't even need to see the video. Just the comforting knowledge that someone says that someone else posted one somewhere is sufficient to support the claim.

There is a concept about multiple correlations, but that could be bad or good, so again it is what a person thinks is best. As far as youtube clips, I find the sequences to be quite interesting. There are entire stories, although with some embellishment with imperfection. Interestingly I though each video had one point in time of use, but now the it seems the sequences can be mixed and matched to form many stories, and that is interesting as the context creates different definition of each piece.

For instance the sting song that says walks through the picket lines matches the round top clip. And the Sting clip was go signal for the cats clip which matches the left wheel, and the post on Yes/no was right side, and 100 other things that match up in a story fashion. So they seem to tell multiple stories at once, wheels in wheels, it is like there are many stories from one item, and they fit together in different ways, but with the reader being part of the story. Really fascinating and wonderful, and beyond understanding, more glimpses of something really wonderful. Although there are also parts that do not fit, or some missed timing. Like the comment on the baseball video was a day off timing. It should have been before the round top clip. Or the comments on pain, reappearing in the Billy Joel clip and others, after part of pain being already pointed out and taken away. Or the confiscation of the stapler and disappearing device seemed to be a little off, and seemed to have multi streams. It is like things matching the way you need to think of them to tell a story, but as you change the metaphor you think on, the clips change in sequence to tell that story in that metaphor. Really interesting. It is like finding a metaphor that you can make sense of, then videos telling the story inside that metaphor, but none are perfect as defined by metaphor, but each sorta tells a story. Not sure what it all means, but it has to be supernatural, it is beyond my conception. So while in one thought, it tells one way, but while in another thought it tells it another way.

:shrug: I wonder if anyone else sees the correlations. And I don't claim if they are good or bad, and in many see it like a conflict between good and bad, although I try to see the good in the clips. And I enjoy much of the music and the songs singers write and sing.



I should say that I try to post comments based on thought and feeling, but also enjoy the stories, and can see much good in them, and some bad.

[Ruby the Liberal]

3. This is the most bizarre post I have ever read on this site.

:toast:

[Cronus Protagonist]

4. It really hits the mark

I just wish I could see it.

[hunter]

9. I've seen plenty more bizarre.

And some of those were mine!

Writing is good.

[RandomThoughts]

19. You haven't been seeing all the pieces then. Most of them individually can look that way.

:D

:toast:

I will say, I reviewed some thoughts on Niche, and clarified one of the questions in post, it is within context that it matters, and the bad context of creating despair is what should be removed, but context of overcoming in unfortunate situations can have a purpose, even if not what I think of as from good, it can help a person learn, hence the comment on reversals.


Not bizarre,

but

Full Of Win!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(from the view of not playing game or wining or losing)

[Ruby the Liberal]

20. You crack me up.

:D :toast:

[RandomThoughts]

21. What is funny, is from a certain way of looking at things.

With just the right angle, with just the right lighting, I am being serious.

Although I don't always state things perfectly, and do enjoy humor, I am actually being serious, and I do understand how that can be funny, and I get joy from that also. :D


Not sure what is funnier, seeing the things in a way that is joyful, or thinking it is joyful someone seeing things a certain way, even if not always completely consceivable in either view.

Heh, funny thought, in a good way :D





:rofl:

But I find that really interesting also.

:toast:

:D

[slackmaster]

6. Thanks for your thoughtful comments, RT. I found a link to a video on YouTube...

A Cold War-era propaganda film from the Soviet Union that supposedly depicts use of a nuclear bomb to stop an out-of-control gas well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpPNQoTlacU

Students of film criticism will notice some severe continuity problems - The alleged burning gas well just before the detonation doesn't look anything like the inferno shown at the beginning of the film; and what happened to the mud pits with hydrogen sulfide boiling up out of them? I find the claim that the film depicts use of a nuclear explosion to stop a gas leak to be dubious. It would make more sense to me to use a conventional explosive and hope for the best.

It is well documented that the Soviet Union performed some test uses of nuclear explosions to increase the yield of gas wells. The Globus-1 test of 1971 released a lot of radioactive gas and left an unusable mess behind.

[BeFree]

5. I say we do it

We have spent billions on nukes. BILLIONS.

The nukes just sit there, wasting away. Lets use 'em. What are yall afraid of?

We can turn the gulf into a glass parking lot in a matter of minutes and who cares if anything can live on a parking lot?

I say we either use the nukes or lose them.

We'll save money either way, and money IS the most important thing.

[nichomachus]

7. Amazing

1. Beware of big promises. If something sounds too good to be true, then it probably isn't true.

2. Multiple variations of a story with varying levels of detail, but no credible source to back them up.

3. High pressure tactics, such as dire warnings that you must act NOW, otherwise a valuable opportunity will be lost.

Sounds just like the line of bullshit used by Christian preachers. Thanks for proving that Christianity is a hoax.

[slackmaster]

8. I don't view Christianity or any other sincere religion as a hoax, however...

...figuring out that they can't all be right but they can all be wrong is what converted me to Agnosticism.

A hoax is the deliberate propagation of a known falsehood. I think most religious people truly believe in the literal truth of at least part of their respective religions.

[nichomachus]

13. Not true

Many preachers -- at least those who have studied in a theological school that wasn't in a strip mall -- know that most of the NT is fiction. For example, all the birth and death narratives or Jesus are complete fiction. No serious biblical scholar disputes that. A good part of the letters of Paul were written long after Paul died. And on and on and on. However, they still preach every Sunday as if it were all real and accurate historical fact.

[slackmaster]

15. I think that discussion belongs either in Religion & Spirituality or Books: Fiction

I don't presume to divine what's going on inside of other peoples' heads. If someone tells me he or she believes something, I take it at face value unless they have given me a specific reason to doubt their honesty.

[lpbk2713]

10. If the source is Faux Snooze ...

you can count on it being pure unadulterated bullshit.

[Seneca]

11. Maybe so

But once I get my million dollars deposited into my account by my good friend in Nigeria, and finish forwarding all those emails for Bill Gates, I will post a rebuttal.

[nebenaube]

12. how many?

How many successful underground nuclear detonations have been carried out on US soil?

[Catherina]

14. Let me help you out oh you with the broken fingers

While I'm vehemently against using any nukes in the Gulf, and have been clear about that, I take exception to the smug manner with which you belittle other DUers without even bothering to do a little research.

You're free to dislike the use of nuclear weaponry but you're not free to create your own facts.

The following is an excerpt from a 1996 DOE report titled: "The Soviet Program for Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Explosions" from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

You are foolish to so vehmently dismiss facts, without researching them because they don't suit your agenda, and mock those who did. I pray your broken fingers heal soon so you can do your own fact-checking instead of challenging others to waste their time so they can spoon feed you. This report isn't even hard to find. A quick search at the Department of Energy brings it right up.

excerpts from articles)

3. Extinguishing Runaway Gas Well Fires

Shortly after the Soviet PNE Program was established, an urgent industrial problem was brought to the leaders of the program - could a underground nuclear explosion be used to put out a gas well fire that had been raging for some 3 years (See Section B.2, Appendix 2)?

Urtabulak - On December 1, 1963, while drilling gas Well No. 11 in the Urtabulak gas field in Southern Uzbekistan, about 80 km southeast of Bukhara, control of the well was lost at a depth of 2450 m. This resulted in the loss of over 12 million m3 of gas per day through an 8 inch casing, enough gas to supply the needs of a large city such as St. Petersburg. Formation pressures were about 270-300 atmospheres. Over the next three years, many attempts were made using a variety of techniques to cap the well at the surface or to reduce the flow and extinguish the flames. However, since the bottom 1000 m of the casing had not yet been cemented, such attempts led to diversion of the gas into nearby wells and to serious personnel safety problems because of the high H2S content of the gas. Underground attempts were hampered by the fact that the location of the lower portion of the hole had notbeen logged at the time control was lost. Finally, in the fall of 1966 it was decided attempt closing the well with the use a nuclear explosive. It was believed that a nuclear explosion would squeeze closed anyhole located within 25-50 m of the explosion, depending on the yield. Two 44.5 cm(13.5 in) diameter slant wells, Holes No. lc and 2c, were drilled simultaneously. They were aimed to come as close as possible to Hole No. 11 at a depth of about 1500 m in the middle of a 200 m thick clay zone. This depth was considered sufficient to contain the 300-atmosphere pressure in the gas formation below. A number of acoustic and electromagnetic techniques were used to estimate the distance between Hole No 11 and inclined explosive emplacement hole at 1450 m. The final estimate for the closest distance between Hole No. 11 and Hole No. lc was 35 m ± 10 m.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 34

The location for the explosive in Hole lc was cooled to bring it down to a temperature the explosive could withstand. A special 30 kt nuclear explosive developed by the Arzamas nuclear weapons laboratory for this event emplaced in Hole lc and stemmed. It was detonated on Sept. 30, 1966. Twenty-three seconds later the flame went out and the well was sealed.

Pamuk • A few months after the closure of the Urtabulak No. 11 hole, control was lost of another high pressure well in a similar nearby field, Hole No. 2-R in the Pamuk gas field. In this case, drilling had progressed to a depth of 2748 m before the gas-containing horizon was encountered and gas pressures were significantly higher than at Urtabulak (580 atm.). A month and a half after the runaway well started, it blocked itself at a depth of 800-1000. Remedial work was done in the well and appeared to have resolved the problem when, four months later, gas started coming to the surface through other holes and through the ground itself. After several unsuccessful attempts to seal the well by hydraulic fracturing from a slant-drilled well, it was decided to again use a nuclear explosive to pinch off the runaway well. A new inclined hole, No. 10-N, was drilled to intersect Hole 2-R in the middle of a salt formation that overlay the gas producing formation. Measurements after it had been drilled indicated that the minimum separation distance at a depth of 2440 m was 30 ± 5 m. This time a special explosive developed by die Chelyabinsk nuclear weapons laboratory was used that had been designed and tested to withstand the high pressures and temperatures in excess of 100 °C expected in the emplacement hole. It also was designed to be only 24 cm in diameter and about 2 m long to facilitate its use in conventional gas and oil field holes. Its yield was 47 kt. The explosive was inserted into Hole 10-N and detonated on May 21, 1968 at a depth of 2440 m. Because of the large amount of gas that had infiltrated the overlying strata during the preceding two years, the flow continued for seven days before it finally died out and the seal was complete. The second "success" gave Soviet scientists great confidence in the use of this new technique for rapidly and effectively controlling runaway gas and oil wells.

"Crater and Fakel" - Some four years later, two more opportunities arose infor the use of nuclear explosions to extinguish runaway gas well fires. The first,code-named "Crater," was in the Mayskii gas field about 30 km southeast of the city of Mary in Central Asia. Control of the gas well was lost on May 11, 1970 and about 700,000 m3 of gas was lost per day. The producing horizon in this field was at the 3000m level. No details have been made public about this application except that on Apr.11, 1972 a 14 kt explosion at a depth of 1720 m in an argillite formation was used to successfully seal the runaway well. Later in 1972, on July 7 another runaway gas well, in the Ukraine, about 20 km north of the city of Krasnograd and 65 km southwest of Karkov was sealed with a nuclear explosion. The runaway well was in the Krestishche gas formation at a depth of over 3000 m. No additional information has been made available except that for this event, named "Fakel," a 3.8 kt explosion at a depth of 2483 m in a salt formation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 35

was used. The small yield would indicate that the location of the runaway well was well known and the explosive emplacement hole was drilled to be very close to it at shot depth."Pyrite" - The last attempt to use this application occurred in 1981, on a runaway well in the Kumzhinskiy gas deposit in the northern coast of European Russia near the mouth of the Pechora River, SO km north of the city of Nar'yan Mar. Control of the well was lost on Nov. 28, 1980 and it was losing about 1600,000 m3 of gasper day. On May 5, 1981, a 37.6 kt nuclear explosion code-named "Pyrite" was detonated at a depth of 1511 m in a sandstone-clay formation near the runaway well. However, the nuclear explosion did not seal the well, perhaps because of poor data on the position of the runaway well. No additional details have been published on the results of the nuclear attempt or of subsequent efforts to close the well by other means. In these attempts to extinguish runaway gas wells, MinAtom reports that all were completely contained and no radioactivity above background levels was detected at the surface of the ground during post-shot surveys. Underground Cavities for Storage of Gas Condensate Building on their experience with creating the two cavities in salt at Azgir in1966 and 1968, Soviet scientists began to consider possible use of such cavities within the industrial sectors for underground storage. In the late 60s contacts were established with specialists at the Ministries of Oil, Gas, Chemistry and Oil Refining to assess their future requirements for underground storage and their interest in exploring the use of nuclear explosions to help meet those needs. The greatest interest was found in the Oil Production Ministry and plans were quickly developed for a program to develop this application (See Section B.4, Appendix 2).The experience at Azgir with the "Halite" A-l and A-2 explosions clearly identified two of the most significant technical issues that had to be dealt with: isolation of the cavity from access to any source of water through fractures, cracks or the emplacement or other holes near the cavity; and finding a depth that would be great enough to contain the required explosive yield without exacerbating problems of cavity stability against collapse or compression by the lithostatic pressure. Any leakage of water into the cavity, as occurred in both the early cavities at Azgir, could quickly lead to leaching of the radioactivity trapped in the recongealed salt lens at the bottom the cavity and contamination of any product stored in the cavity. Project "Magistral'" - The first experiment- specifically directed at the use of underground nuclear explosion cavities for storage. Project "Magistral'", was carried out in the Sovkhoz gas deposit about 70 km northeast of Orenburg, and 100 km south of die first oil stimulation project at the "Butane" site (See Fig. 5).9189 Op. Qt, Ref. 13, p. 50-1.90 Op. Qt, Ref. 13, p. 151.91 Although all sources state that Project "Magistral'" was the first nuclear explosion directed at the development of underground storage technology, all MinAtom lists carry an event code-named "Tavda" on Oct 10,1967 as the first storage explosion. This explosion had a yield of only 0.3 kt and was at a depth of 172 meters.

https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/238468.pdf

There's more. Lots more but I wouldn't want to tax you.

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[slackmaster]

16. Wow, someone actually came through with possibly verifiable data!

Thank you.

[Catherina]

18. You're welcome

Thanks for being gracious about it. I regret my snark.

[johnaries]

17. Conventional bombs were used to blow-out BURNING wells.

The purpose was to deprive the fire of oxygen. After the fire was put out, then the oil was still gushing - but they could at least get to it to cap it.

Trying to cap a gusher with any type of expolsive - on land or undersea - is ludicrous on the face of it.