SautnerGate Unravels as Dimock Truth Unveiled

We reported earlier on a video of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staffers falling victim to a temper tantrum from Craig and Julie Sautner, the well-known litigants from Dimock.  The EPA visited the Sautners to explain the findings of their water test results last week.  The meeting did not go well.  Vera Scroggins, who was there, posted a 14 second video snippet of the interaction.  Like most rational individuals, we realized pretty quickly there was more to the story and asked why the remaining footage was not shared. This week, another activist who was also in attendance, Lisa Barr of New York, released all 38 minutes and 29 seconds of the footage, complete with her own dubious interpretations of what occurred.  It makes for quite a story – one of anger, confusion, frustration and ignorance.  We call it SautnerGate.

Scroggins Video Leaves Viewers with Questions

Vera Scroggins’ video, the first one released, reduced 20 minutes or so of heated discussion down to mere seconds to yield a very misleading–as you will see in the complete footage–picture of the EPA discussing water quality while refusing to try it themselves. The intention was, obviously, to place doubt in the viewers mind as to why the officials would be telling the family the water is safe to drink, in one breath, while refusing to do so themselves in the next. It might have been an effective strategy if; 1) the unseen footage hadn’t been questioned, and 2) Barr hadn’t released her video. But, both did happen and Vera’s video can go down as one more failed attempt at manipulating the Dimock story.

Barr Fills In the Blanks

We cannot share Lisa Barr’s video with you here on our page, as she refuses for some reason to allow others to embed the video.  We have quite a few suspicions as to why, but we’ll leave the assuming to Barr. You will see in the video she produced in her assumptions she manages to get just about everything wrong in her interpretation of what happened.  It’s hard to imagine anyone could take a failed Sautner stunt and make it worse, but she’s managed to do it, so kudos to her!

Craig Sautner Huffs and Puffs and Flails About with Jug of Water as EPA Gives Up and Leaves (29:50)

Before you head over there, here’s some key episodes we thought were worth highlighting so you can watch for them. Be sure to come back when you’re done to read some more information about this video.  Also, while you’re there, see if you can count how many times words were apparently cut from the video.

Were these cases of deleted expletives?  No one can be sure, of course, but it looks that way, especially when the Sautner’s point toward their neighbors’ home.  Perhaps an “expletives deleted” counting contest is in order.

4:58 Trish Taylor (EPA): Discusses letter from EPA’s toxicologist stating the data from the most recent water tests shows no potential health issues.

7:07 Trish Taylor (EPA): “This is a memo from [our toxicologist] saying that she didn’t see any health risks.”

7:15 Craig Sautner: “So, in other words, I’m allowed to drink this water and it’s not going to cause me any harm?” Trish (EPA): “Right.”

7:45 Craig Sautner: Craig gets upset – Take 1.

8:35 Rich (EPA): “I’ve looked at your historical data–all the way back to 2008–and other than some bacteria that seemed to be somewhat persistent early on we didn’t see anything in there that raised any alarms in our eyes.”

8:50 Rich (EPA): “I’ve seen your water. I’ve tasted your water actually and it didn’t taste unusual. Actually compared to the water I was drinking at the hotel it didn’t have all the chlorine.

9:02 Craig Sautner:  Craig gets upset – Take 2.  He brings up a year or more ago when he claims his kids were getting rashes and sick reportedly from the water.

9:22 Rich (EPA): He responds he doesn’t know what it was like a year ago and Julie Sautner interjects to say this is not what they’re [EPA] is disputing. Craig’s response to Julie (9:32): “I don’t care what now means.”

17:07 Craig Sautner:  He asks if benzo(a)pyrene is naturally occurring in a well. EPA responds no.

17:18 Rich (EPA): “It may not have been in the well. It might have been in the water when we collected the sample. This is a car exhaust. This could be from car exhaust. Let’s assume it came from your well…it’s still almost four times below the drinking water standardEven if this were here, it wouldn’t effect anything we do because it’s well below the permissible drinking water standard. It’s not a health risk…It’s not a health risk based on 30 years of drinking 2 liters a day.”

*Note: Barr was concerned (based on her added texts at 17:31) as to how benzo(a)pyrene would have gotten into the well, so we did a little research. An EPA explanation can be found at this link.

They are not produced or used commercially but are very commonly found since they are formed as a result of incomplete combustion of organic materials.

The major source of benzo(a)pyrene in drinking water is leaching from linings of water storage tanks and distribution lines.

19:00 ATSDR Toxicologist: “It says none of the constituents were detected at levels of concern. That’s different than saying nothing was detected. Anything that was detected was not at a level of concern.”

19:42 ATSDR Toxicologist:   Explains sodium levels and the Sautner’s data is below trigger levels. “The [trigger level] for sodium is based on people with a sodium restricted diet. And, if you’re on a sodium restricted diet you can basically consume 1500 mg and this is…100 times below what you can consume.” Craig Sautner acknowledges no one in the household is on a sodium restricted diet.

21:45 Julie Sautner: “Why is the water fluctuating so much?” Rich (EPA) responds, “This is the natural system. You’re not going to pull water out of the ground and not find iron and all these different minerals.”

21:58 Craig Sautner gets upset Take 3. “It wasn’t here before.”

22:39 Julie Sautner: “This is Cabot’s very own pre-drill test. Right here it tells you what meter was used for the methane. There was none.”  Rich (EPA) responds, “They didn’t test for the methane. What they tested for…”  Notice how Barr cuts the explanation off.  Is there no end to the manipulation?  Isn’t it about time we saw the entire unedited video, expletives deleted and all?

23:00-24:19 Julie/Craig Sautner: Craig (and Julie) get upset Take 4.  Julie begins talking about non-litigants and calling her neighbors names. Barr edits the clip for language 5 times. Craig and Julie both get up. Julie tells Barr she won’t sit down, “I’m done with this s—” and walks out. Craig remains and starts spouting off about Cabot. Rich (EPA) tries to calm him down.

24:30-25:33 Craig Sautner:  Craig Sautner gets upset Take 5.  This episode is the subject of Scroggins clip and then some. Craig starts piling up jugs on the table. Rich (EPA) tells Craig to get a glass and they can go downstairs to get a drink from the water.  Vera left this part out.  The EPA did not want to drink from the jugs; Rich did not refuse to drink the water altogether.

25:45 Rich (EPA):  Rich discusses the cloudiness in some of the jugs comes from pumping the well too much. “The last time I was here, when I looked at your cloudy water, your wife told me that the day before you had…[Craig Sautner interrupts]…You’re wife told me you ran it dry the day before.”

26:15 Craig Sautner:  Craig Sautner gets upset Take 6. “You’re not listening to anything we say. You’re saying our water’s fine and we can drink it!”

27:25-28:25 Craig Sautner:  He goes off about president Obama and Lisa Jackson. Rich (EPA) explains there were no contaminents and they will be collecting additional samples. EPA begins to make a move to leave because it is no longer a rational conversation.

28:35 Craig Sautner:  He brings a jug in to light on fire–nothing happens.

28:52 Rich (EPA): “Methane is not a health concern.”

29:00-29:58 Craig Sautner.  Craig Sautner gets upset Take 7.

32:35 Craig and Julie Sautner:  The famous couple follows EPA out to their cars. They question whether anyone with water problems is a litigant.  Julie threatens, “This is going to go international.”

33:20-34:02 Craig/Julie Sautner:  Craig Sautner gets upset Take 8.  They issue more conspiracy theories about their water tests and derogatory remarks about their neighbors.

34:11-34:50 Craig/Julie Sautner:  Craig Sautner gets upset Take 9. “They’re all a bunch of liars.”

34:47 Craig Sautner: “I probably shouldn’t have even called [EPA] to come in here.”  The video concludes with Craig pulling the test plug on his methane vent cap, filling a jug with methane and lighting it. Barr then asks the Sautner’s some questions.

36:55 Julie Sautner:   Julie says, in reference to EPA telling other litigants about their water results, “Everybody freaked out on them. They got the same. I think we were probably worse.”

Barr Demands You See It Her Way or Not at All

Now that you’ve seen the film in its entirety, let’s talk about some of those assumptions Barr makes.  She packaged her video in a way she thought would ensure viewers saw it her way.  She even resorted to threatening Dimock Proud for removing her editorial comments. Dimock Proud wanted share the video without all of the distractions and produced a clean version to allow viewers to come to their conclusions, but Barr went ballistic.

http://dimockproud.com/videos/dimock-family-says-epa-reps-are-a-bunch-of-liars/

Lisa Barrsays:

The COMPLETE video is HERE–within a link in this article: http://www.hegemonicseam.blogspot.com/2012/05/epa-to-frack-victims-drop-dead.html. But on the video posting on vimeo, It CLEARLY stated fair use BY PERMISSION ONLY. You did NOT have permission from me to use this video. Nor did you have my permission to create a derivative product. You are violating my copyright license. You are also greatly distorting what happened. CEASE and DESIST all use of my work product.
As the video explains, the EPA RAISED ITS DETECT LEVELS for the contaminants in question. They SAY they raised the detect levels to give the water the ‘all clear’ because of “LAB CONTAMINANTS: and/or ‘CONTAMINATED FIELD SAMPLES’—YOU HAVE LIBELED THE SAUNTERS AND VIOLATED MY COPYRIGHT. CEASE AND DESIST. You are also mean. Lisa Barr

She also then put this on her website beneath the video.

This is NOT Creative Commons–no one may edit this or use it even fair use WITHOUT prior approval. Dimock Proud has stolen this video and edited it in a distorted manner. I am trying to track down who is DimockProud.com –hosted by wildwestdomains. Please call them and complain. 757-416-6575. The man in the green is a PA Toxicologist whose presence was NOT mentioned to Dimock residents prior to his arrival WITH the EPA. He downplayed the presence of petrochemicals and other carcinogens that are used or created in the ‘fracking’ process. EPA officials explained strange procedures used in order to say the water there is safe. These included RAISING the detect levels for certain chemicals. They raised them when they found ‘laboratory contaminants in the samples, or when there was ‘suspected’ field sample contamination. All three of these are pretty amazing admissions of either incompetency or a premeditated plot to confuse the residents. At any rate–it’s despicable behavior. This is NOT the EPA I have seen in action. It’s shameful. 202-564-4700. Tell them to give the Sautners and everyone the ORIGINAL data BEFORE the detect levels were ‘RAISED’ due to ‘suspected contamination’==tell them it’s a ruse and we will not let any citizen’s water be polluted with cover by ‘captured’ regulatory agencies.

The title of the post, “Dimock Family Member Says EPA Reps Are A Bunch Of Liars!” (which, by the way, Craig Sautner clearly says at 34:16) is the only reference Dimock Proud makes to the Sautner’s. For this, and the distribution of a video made by her and posted for the world to see and download, Barr claims Dimock Proud is being libelous.  Is she kidding?  We suggest Barr, like Scroggins, look in the mirror if she’s looking for someone to blame for revealing what the Sautner’s case is all about.

A title repeating what Craig says, combined with video of actual events, is hardly an unjust attack or libelous in any way.

Assumptions to Direct the Storyline

Further, if removing the comments from the raw footage distorts the reality of what took place–a preposterous assertion if there ever was one–let’s talk about the distortions resulting from inserting them into the raw video. You can be the judge as to why it’s so crucial to Barr these items remain in the video.

2:07 The guy in the green is a PA toxicologist.

Actually the guy in green (Charles) is from ATSDR, as Trish Taylor (EPA) states at 3:28. ATSDR, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, is a federal agency under the Center for Disease Control (CDC) which:

…serves the public by using the best science, taking responsive public health actions, and providing trusted health information to prevent harmful exposures and diseases related to toxic substances.

ATSDR is not a state agency. And, that’s only the first claim Barr makes–something easily researched. She’s batting 0 for 1.

Barr tells Dimock Proud, “You are also greatly distorting what happened.” That’s interesting, considering this next added piece from Barr at 6:04.

From http://vimeo.com/41848980 at minute 6:04

The “no” she is referring to occurs at 6:18. Barr then follows this with another screen offering a running tally of things she finds disrespectful from the EPA and, then, yet another screen alluding to the attitudes or character of the EPA representatives.

From http://vimeo.com/41848980 at minute 6:27

Lisa is trying to direct the viewer’s perception a wee bit, wouldn’t you say?  You might even say she is greatly distorting things!  When your movie star throws a temper tantrum, I guess you have to rationalize it somehow. But, I digress.

Next, Barr attempts to ridicule the EPA’s expertise.  She seems to suggest no one is an expert unless they come from the SUNY (State University of New York), as Ron Bishop, a well-known natural gas opponent, does.  She even resorts to some hog-calling by telling viewers how to pronounce “soon-ee.”  SUNY may be a good school but suggesting an activist member of the faculty from the Oneonta campus, who is a favorite expert for the Dimock litigants, is an objective observer takes a things a bit too far.

From http://vimeo.com/41848980 at minute 6:47

Barr goes on to interject more comments such as calling the EPA “patronizing” and giving her own renditions of what occurred.  We’re curious as to why she would think the audience would need such prodding to see things her way, if that is in fact what the video showed. But, of course, what she she wants everyone to see is not what the video shows and that’s her issue with having it removed.  She makes a number of of thoroughly ridiculous assertions that we need not rebut them here.

All one has to do is watch the video for themselves and hear the EPA’s explanations.  We hold no admiration for the EPA.  Their mission in Dimock was ill-conceived to say the least.  That doesn’t, however, mean the staff wasn’t honest in reporting the results.  They only confirmed what Cabot and DEP observed earlier, which is hardly a surprise.  The litigants wanted a change and didn’t get it.  They see a lawsuit being eviscerated by their actions–their decision to invite in the EPA, among other things.

There was no point at which the EPA officials did not patiently answer the Sautners’ questions to the best of their ability.  Their answers just weren’t what the Sautners wanted to hear, and now anti-natural gas activists are attempting to demonize the agency to keep Dimock in the spotlight.

One is compelled to ask shouldn’t knowing their water is not a health risk be considered good news?  When will the activists holding signs demanding clean water for Dimock celebrate the fact it’s gotten a clean bill of health?

These questions shouldn’t even need to be asked. Cabot’s test showed the water was fine. DEP’s tests showed the water is safe. EPA’s tests showed the water is safe.  Unfortunately for the litigants, it seems they have run out of government agencies and respectable institutions to harass in their search of the answers they want to hear.  The reason, the answers they want to hear simply do not exist.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

  1. GettheFacts says:

    Very curious as to who ownes the water well these people (litigants)claim doesn’t work or has issues in the video. Since numerous statements have been made about it I’m guessing these people have some sort of proof to back up their claims. I challenge them to show what if any proof they have right here and right now. Post it on this page for everyone to see. In simple terms Put Up or ShutUp!!!!

    • Bill Ferullo says:

      They have been trying to show proof for ears where you been but people like you are in denial ……!

      • GettheFacts says:

        Maybe you should reread the post you responded to again. It’s obvious you aren’t the sharpest tool in the shed. If they have some sort of proof about the person’s well in question then they should show it. Since they haven’t responded they don’t and it’s just one more lie. They’ve told so many they can’t keep count. Since you obviously have no clue what you are talking about you should get some more information before you post. Before you take a side you should get some true and factual information. When the truth all comes out you may be embarrassed by the people you sided with. It’s obvious they are upset that their water is clean. If it was truly about the water wouldn’t they want it to be clean? Or don’t you get that?

  2. susan dorsey says:

    Lisa Barr! ha,ha

    that’s rich

  3. Tom Frost says:

    I see you finally looked up “saunter” in the dictionary and decided that the definition thereof wasn’t QUITE ideal to use that spelling in front of “gate”. Neither is the spelling you’re using now.

    • Tom says:

      I’m sure this is illuminating for those of the anti-gas persuasion but you lost me on that one, Tom.

    • Tom–that’s because the kids at EID Marcellus have never worked in a newsroom, never produced a soundbite sheet. They’re PR hacks, Tom–we can’t expect them to get the spelling of names correct. Again, EID kiddies–I am serious–you are violating the terms of the copyright stated CLEARLY in the text of the video you PIRATED. It says you need my permission. You don’t have it. CEASE AND DESIST. http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/11/epa-to-fracking-victims-drop-dead/

      • Tom says:

        Lisa, we are only linking to your public video and commenting on it, which is perfectly legal. Moreover, you made it publicly available for download long before putting any restrictions on it.

        • Not true. The subtitle at the beginning CLEARLY stated that you needed my permission and you did not have it. Typical.

          • Tom says:

            No one needs permission to link to a site or comment on it.

  4. Jimmy says:

    Craig is a crybaby. The next time the EPA should make him come to their office.

  5. Rach says:

    I love that when all else fails the antis resort to criticizing how people pronounce SUNY. It just proves they aren’t here to argue facts, merely opinion. I graduated from a SUNY school and know how to present facts and actual data, maybe these guys should have done the same

  6. PG PG says:

    Question………….How can EPA raise the detect levels of chemicals for anyone because they found contamination which was caused by their own testing?

    • Tom says:

      The EPA explains this in the video.

    • PG PG
      How can you empty a well on Monday and not expect it to be cloudy on Tuesday.
      My well is seventy five feet deep and is in a gravel bed not solid rock. It pumps water at 14 gallons a minute which is considered good. I can empty the well in about 1.5 hours and do so about once a year to treat it with Clorox to kill bacteria. after doing so it takes a day sometimes longer before the water clears.

      I have been to the Saunters and I have a theory on the 17ppb on the salt levels in their water. Perhaps because the road is above the well if the road is salted it may migrate to the well itself. Perhaps the salt from their vehicles and the road ice that collects and falls in chunks from the car as it melts or the car is washed it migrates… just a theory but I do not see it being from drilling.

      I have said it for years and I will say it again. I don’t think Craig and Julie are bad people and I do believe that their water in the beginning was effected by Cabot’s well and subsequent methane migration. I believe Cabot mitigated the problem and with the consent order signed by the PA-DEP they were fairly compensated for the problems.

      I also feel that NYRAD and other anti drilling groups used the Saunters and the other litigants in Dimock PA as a pawn in their anti drill campaign not caring that the families would be collateral damage in their quest to prevent drilling in NY. I truly hope Craig and Julie realize that even though many people in NY are angered that they brought their fight to our state that we understand that would not of happened had it not been for the anti drill agenda of NYRAD and we hold no remorse towards them.

      However…. If the only reason they did this was to gain sympathy from the general public to further their litigation and reward expectations… then it will not be NY that judges them… It will not be me but rather their own consciousness in the long term.

      Awhile ago, Talking with Craig I had asked him this question ” Craig… if your family is getting rashes on their skin …. If there passing out in the shower…. why don’t you get them out of danger with your 350,000.00 consent agreement from Cabot…?” His reply to me was “I never said they were getting rashes or passing out!” yet he claims rashes once again in the video????

  7. scott cline says:

    Thanks again EID for getting the facts to the folks. Those of us that have spent their careers , hearts and souls in diligent care for the environment in the quest for securing a domestic sourced clean energy source thank you.

    • Thank you Dr. Cline
      For your dedication to protecting our environment.
      Your facts go along way to educating the masses and debunking the mis informed.

  8. Glenn says:

    Nicole…Absolutely Priceless…
    There is an as yet to be discussed smokin gun in the video…
    Actually there are 2…

    First and Foremost…the implied threats made by the…film-maker??…
    are at best worthless…that individual percieves themselves as the center of the universe…
    YO…whats your face…Make all the threats ya want…The EPA also has a recording…
    Paid for by Taxpayer money…and held accountable by those of us that pick up the check.

    #2…YO…Self proclaimed un-documented…Citizen Journalist…
    Quick Question…You are filmed…filming for over 30 minutes…
    Therefore…suspect your 14 second attempt at the facts…spook U more then they do Me.
    Where is the rest of the video you have been filmed making…

    With all due Respect…Nicole…Job Well Done…
    They said It…They Own It…

    time to go over to http://www.greedylandowners.com
    and really vent…

    Touche’…

    • And EID Marcellus could do the WORK of getting a FOIA for it–which no doubt would be denied due to the rights of the Sautners–did EID attempt to FOIA it? No. Instead, they steal the work product of people. Shameful.

      • And, you did more than post the LINK–you EMBEDDED it and you CHANGED the headline on the facebook page to give the MISTAKEN impression that MY headline was something other than what it was. Libelling me is one thing–stealing my work is another. CEASE and DESIST. If people want to see my stuff–they can go to counterpunch –but having my work posted on this ridiculous site without my permission is beyond the pale. It’s not about ‘being the center of the universe’–it’s about my intellectual property and you had no right to embed it, or to create a false headline and false tag. Shame on you. After the Dimock Proud people ripped it my intent was clear–BY PERMISSION ONLY and I am pretty darn certain you were in communication with them or saw what was going on so you HAD NOTICE of my intentions about copyright. But then the dirty energy crowd plays, well, dirty, eh?

        • Tom says:

          Your work is presented as is. What we say on our Facebook about it is our business. We have changed nothing you have written, nor have we have done anything other than link to your own site.

          • You created a derivative product. In violation of your ADMITTED knowledge of the copyright rules regarding my product. That’s what the problem is. You’re smart of enough to know you are STEALING my work.

          • Tom Frost says:

            Choosing which parts to embed and not embed on your site, CONSTITUTES changing what someone has presented; I have plenty of first-hand experience on that aspect just from your SELECTIVE CENSORING OF ME, Mr. Shepstone.

          • Nicole Jacobs says:

            Tom, we haven’t embedded any of Lisa’s video. The only video on this event we have embedded came from Vera Scroggins. We have linked to the video, which is perfectly legal.

          • Tom Frost says:

            Hahaha; I see you’ve suddenly complied with Lisa’s request to include your last name. I, on the other hand, would really like for “Tom” to do so.

          • Nicole Jacobs says:

            It’s Tom Shepstone. No secret there.

  9. Great expo’s e EID… I think the best part is when Vera didn’t have anything to say….. If you ever fished and caught one…then threw it up on shore…. you saw the fish flopping on the ground trying to get oxygen. That is what Craig looked like in the video when the test results were not what he had hoped for. Another good analogy is how both Julie and Craig acted as things started falling apart for them. It reminded me of the 1st grade when the teacher canceled recreation outside because of an oncoming storm , some kids just sighed and succumbed to the disappointing news, others fell to the floor crying and kicking their feet and threatening to tell Mom and Dad, I guess some children never grow up and can’t handle adult conversation… It would have been nice to hear the results and disputes discussed without the childish behavior and stomping of feet.

    If they were to drill in my yard and my well had to have a methane venting system for natural gas… I would get a regulator hooked up and use it for BBQ’s have you seen how much $$$ it is to fill a 20lb cylinder for propane….

  10. susan dorsey says:

    bird flying backwards at 37:25 – must have been drinking the water!

  11. Robin says:

    BUSTED!
    I wondered what the brown juggers were doing to make their water look so dirty for each public appearance, and now the truth is there on video.

    Craig runs the well dry!

    Hell, if I run my well dry I get dirty water too!

    Victor, excellent thoughts about the ground water running into the well (since we all know by now the well was not drilled to any standard and groundwater can enter) and frankly any other contaminants would enter via runoff also.

    Their desperation is evident in the temper tantrums. Clearly things are not going as planned and the big payoff may be in jeopardy.

    WHY didn’t they take the money and get the family out if things were so bad?? WHY didn’t they allow a water filtration system that Cabot was willing to install, as others have??

    I’m disgusted at the anti-drill groups who have taken this dog-and-pony show and used it to ruin the good name of Dimock. Time to hang it up, greenies, and look for something useful to do…

  12. Consider this my formal notice ‘Nicole” (do you have a last name?) that you are violating my copyright–clearly stated on the video that you need my permission for fair use–and certainly this is not fair use—you are a paid shill so this is a COMMERCIAL USE. CEASE AND DESIST your pirating of the my work product. I have a life, and I never read this ridiculous page, so when I was told you had also pirated my video, I waited til I was done performing the Messiah with Catskill Choral Society. Take my video down.

    • Tom says:

      Lisa, we are only linking to your video and commenting on it, which is perfectly legal.

  13. Sharing the link to my article or my video perfectly okay. what is NOT okay is creating a derivative product or EMBEDDING it in your link. That’s not okay. There was notice. She purports to analyze a soundbite sheet that has editorial comment (which is still okay in the post frack America) meticulously–surely she saw ALL RIGHTS RESERVED–that means no derivatives. A screen shot is a derivative. TAKE IT DOWN. If she wants to write an editorial piece–do it with the links–but not with screen shots or embedded videos. I’m done in this venue. CEASE AND DESIST.

    • Tom says:

      Sorry to see you’re done. Goodbye.

  14. Lisa… More important then Tom stating they only linked to it is you cry of foul., “Cease and Desist”

    Why would you want the video taken down?
    1.) Truth is damning
    2.) a picture is worth 1000 words but a talking picture show is priceless when it shows what this one shows
    3.) when you film a person having a breakdown after the truth reaches out from the science for the third time, and debunks the flailing litigants into subjective adolescent behavior it can be quite embarrassing to their cause
    4.) you traveled two hours to film it and realized that 14 seconds was all that should of been filmed to keep the people guessing but ooopppsey daisy… I bet their lawyer loved it all…. I know I did.
    5.) lets just list 5…. You want it taken down because it is as damning as the reports from Cabot test, PA-DEP Test, and now the EPA test on the water uh who was told according to the actors in the movie that President Obama wanted those 11 wells on Carter Road to pass the EPA criteria so we can drill baby drill. I know this to be true as me and Obama had some ribs and chugged down a few Bud Lights sitting in the Limo watching Scott Ely build his 7,000 sq ft home ontop of that “bad water”

    • PG PG says:

      When was this house being built started?

  15. PG PG it’s still under construction

    • PG PG says:

      You didn’t answer the question. When was it started? I heard it was started before their water was unsuitable.

      As someone stated, they shouldn’t be collecting royalties while having a lawsuit. That is a stupid statement. Why would anyone in their right mind give up their royalties to begin with and especially since they ruined your water?

      • Tom Shepstone says:

        No one’s water is ruined! That’s the point!

  16. GettheFacts says:

    Now that the water tests fine once again. When is the EPA going to stop the tanker truck of water that the taxpayers are paying for? Since it isn’t/wasn’t needed are the litigants going to pay back the taxpayers for it? Since all the water tests fine curious when the for sale signs will go up. These people must be so happy that their homes are/were saleable.

  17. Tom Shepstone says:
  18. Thomas says:

    Hey now stop with the greenie stuff. Im a greenie but im not a F€¥^ moron like the greedy Sautners. They r just a couple of duch bags that got busted in there little scam for big money. When I saw the little movie Josh Fox made I was all pissed off too at the whole fracking ideal.Then I did just a little research…. Fracking is great it has been around for 100 years!!!! Watch a show called FrackNation!!! Butbe careful u might just learn something!!!!

Trackbacks

  1. [...] have a bully fractivist who practices debate by obscenities, knowingly blocks fire exits, puts out deceptive videos, issues false reports, appears in a Roman orgy film, promotes unsavory practices involving [...]

Speak Your Mind

*