THE VENUS DISCOVERY -NASA- OVERLOOKED
At some point in time, I'm thinking that "LIFE" simply must have existed on the planet Venus, and it may yet be thriving in terms of thousands if not millions, however, if some of our crack teams at Club NASA have anything to say about that, most likely you and I, and perhaps even those on Venus, would not live long enough to ever realize this truly remarkable discovery and/or truly exceptional opportunity, especially with regard to next October, 2002 event. By so thoroughly missing this opportunity for the past 13 years and counting, NASA has thus far managed to once again waste these years (this time it's more then another decade and counting) and obviously 10's of billions as for looking elsewhere for signs of life, and yet even with all of my overwhelming supportive evidence (as that taken directly from one of their own certified Magellan images) they still are thoroughly unable to see or even admit to seeing anything worthy at the location of "GUTH Venus","NOTHING WHATSOEVER".. What a downright shame and a total waste of what I otherwise perceive as valuable NASA resources, not to mention all of our hard earned moneys, and now, how thoroughly embarrassing.
One simply must ask; Why did we ever go to the extent and expense of researching and exploring the planet Venus?
Did we perchance not understand something?, Did we learn anything useful or simply not expect to find something other then rock and lava flows?, Were we thinking there was a hidden valley full of gold and rivers of wine, and for that reason alone we apparently needed to know about such things first? Otherwise what exactly was the true mission of Magellan, and therefore the whole pathetic point?.
The list of highly respected investigators is truly impressive, so what the heck went wrong ?.
"GUTH Venus"Careful and thorough study of one (now relatively old and archived "dead-horse") NASA/Magellan (NSA radar/aperture) image, has in fact presented our first ever, as well as our best available to-date high-resolution view at what certainly represents intelligent life supporting structures clearly situated on the planet Venus, as those formed into a well established complex community having and showing rather substantial infrastructure, clearly as that established on the planet Venus and at some considerable (less heated) elevation, and specifically that of many symmetrical structures and infrastructure as those would appear nearly as identical to that of equivalent large Earth structures if captured essentially via the exact same visual equipment technology and of equal resolution, just not nearly as warm nor perhaps as big.
Sorry NASA, even my (not so limited) imaging evidence is simply bigger than life, and that is exactly how others and I see it!.. There seems to be at least 100 times as much viable detail and thereby relevant evidence, that of substantially artificial construction and infrastructure, especially as compared to that of your pathetic "FACE ON MARS" or how about those Apollo landing site images taken from a mere 70 miles above, utilizing a quality format camera and film hosting millions of equivalent pixels per centimeter (neither of which is supporting absolutely any detectable signs of artificial structures and infrastructure as can be perceived as those pertaining to any constructed (artificial) items or even man influenced attributes such as remaining equipment, roads, trails, reservoirs or bridges, however, apparently my evidence (in relation to that insignificant Mars face as well as those questionable Apollo mission images) offered at "GUTH Venus" and supported by 100 times more dimensionally shaped details and thereby vastly more believable pixels (of vastly superior radar/aperture technology at that) are conveniently still not good enough for Club NASA. Excuse me, I have to open a window, the stench from NASA's point of view is becoming repugnant.
The evidence (besides that of my apparently inadequate digital photographic enlargements, as according to NASA) is I believe extremely good, and perhaps too damn good, as I see this discovery as not merely based so much upon any preponderance of my discoveries, as much as it is the total lack of believable counter-evidence as that being presented/imposed by Lord NASA, towards their unsupported claims that nothing whatsoever exist (other then natural lava flow channels, rock formations and common erosion), especially at the location of "GUTH Venus", and then only further suspicious is NASA's suggesting that our finest spy technology (of the time) was somehow not only insufficient to identify the likes of a bridge the size of the "Golden Gate" but even that of substantially larger structural shapes, and yet somehow otherwise totally relevant and trustworthy of accurately depicting lessor terrain and landscape details (as long as it's only lava flow. natural rock formation and erosion related).
I guess NASA wants us to all believe that our multi-billion dollar Magellan equipment and associated massive ground support team(s), as a mission was a total wast of time, apparently because that radar/aperture equipment had some sort of high technology filter glitch that somehow ran assorted visual data bits selectively out of there way simply to falsely fabricate such clearly artificial looking elements.
NASA has also been somewhat overly persistent by offering only their scripted replies, as stating quite firmly; what is within the area of my enlargements is merely and only that of the most common of rock formations, lava flow channels and erosion as to be found anywhere else on Venus.. However, when I have requested specifically just such other supporting image examples (because I have looked long and hard and I can not find them), and NASA has been so far unable and/or unwilling to comply. To benefit NASA's point of view, I then offered options and further concessions to anyone, so as to best support their counter views by accepting support images from not only all other areas on Venus but also that of any such evidence of complex yet natural formations from other planets or moons (including from here on Earth) as would be depicting anything as equal or better in arrangements like those I have pointed out at "GUTH Venus"... Will now,,, it seems they simply can not or will not accomplish this, and because, I believe they are totally unable to support their position as to any degree as to depicting other such structurally appearing natural elements consisting merely of common rock, lava flow channels and erosions, simply no way. So, if you think you can provide such examples, please do so, otherwise, read my words and view my enlargements and then try really hard to believe in what I have to say (that anything is possible), right!.
Ok,,, lets us regress, in order to just consider what NASA has been stating, that "there is nothing to see". Then please objectively try to explain why are there so many closely interrelated issues with regard to these so called naturally formed elements?, and then also, why should that of my views cause such objections by NASA, or for that matter from any serious exploration researcher?, and what possible harm could be done by formally re-examining the images in order to at least explore the possibilities?, especially when NASA as well as other Nations have vastly superior technology to apply that could only better determine the exact nature of what can be clearly seen within my (so called crude) enlargements.
I obviously would like to see new research and survey missions going towards resolving all this, and that these should be arranged soon or even better yet, existing (up coming) missions to Mars or our own moon could and perhaps should be effectively diverted onto Venus. Unlike 10 years ago, no longer is this such a budget busting nor such a complex challenge. So what, I ask, could possibly be the problem with an affordable re-exploration of Venus or at least a concentrated new series of efforts towards communications attempts as being directed specifically at the location of "GUTH Venus"?. Perhaps some of the answers may be related to those in position, having the the most to loose and believing they still hold the power to impose and enforce only NASA's point of view, as perhaps being those same individuals and departments responsible for pulling my discovery posting off "their" so called open internet. Just perhaps my difficulties with NASA go all the way back to the Apollo era?, And how much more intrusion into that Apollo era need we penetrate and uncover in order to simply understand the true nature of NASA's current demise?
I believe much of our ongoing expenses and complexities of exploring Mars and even that of our own moon, and especially more so that of extreme deep space are very good examples of our misguided NASA missions, that which has offered to date so little if any viable resources or discoveries which us as humans here on Earth could utilize. If in fact life or even that of some past form of life existed on Venus, then I believe we have obligations to proceed and learn, but then, how has it been possible that NASA (for nearly 10 years) so totally missed this discovery and all the related opportunities?, and why now (long after the fact) is this discovery not being formally reexamined?, furthermore, why is there such strong opposition (in the form of non-support and/or outright blocking formal funding and study/review research of Venus)? Why has NASA intentionally not openly informed the world about my discovery?, Is everyone at NASA all that insecure over their jobs?, Exactly how many years (decades) longer will it take for our NASA to realize a golden egg when they see one?, will, I'm beginning to think NEVER!, at least not in your or my lifetimes, because as much as they cry and cry about funding, they seem to have had lots of your money to spend, and no plans of re-focus or even considering the cost effective alternatives of simply returning to the planet Venus (that's apparently too damn easy).
Throughout several months (since December 2000), I have been thoroughly studying this, as well as other areas of Venus, and then forwarding information as well as images onto NASA (all of several variations showing essentially the exact same plus newly discovered or perhaps better understood features) in support of my findings, that of substantial structures and thereby highly evolved intelligence which in fact exist on Venus. Each updated round of sharing this discovery as well as further inquires has been supported by improved enlargements and I would believe also somewhat improved descriptions of what I believe is there to see, as nothing is all that obvious to those being so damn adamant about supporting purely NASA's point of view. For non-believers (mostly NSAS types), I would have to believe that a legible road sign or possibly a banner across the entrance to one of those massive structures would not be sufficient.
OK, OK already;
Good luck, and many thanks to all those willing to further research and question this discovery.
I have to believe this; that at least for one very good reason why NASA keeps stating that nothing "NOTHING AT ALL" exist within this area, is because of being somewhat embarrassed their crack team(s) were so totally caught off guard, pants all the way down, and without an official response due mostly to their own "non-disclosure" bylaws (no employee may state or otherwise admit anything without prior official approvals, and this takes time, possibly years). However, I believe this could be the discovery (one and only to date "motherload") that truly rockets their fledgling (out of focus) budgets and thus offers true focus, so I am hoping NASA will eventually turn their attentions around on this truly remarkable opportunity, after all, this was initially achieved (thanks to NASA and a lot of taxpayer's) by our truly remarkable (exceptionally costly) Magellan mission, so our NASA was in fact there first, unfortunately they simply did not bother to ever truly look at their own data, at least not with any regard to that of identifying signs of life or even of past life. This lacking (slack) effort being almost as bad as all of those Apollo photos which never clearly depicted the lunar landscape along with inclusion of the lander plus earth and stars, not even that of the sun (I guess it was a good thing NASA's Apollo mission(s) were never in charge of any crime scene, because if so, we would have 10's of thousands of incredibly expensive photos of everything except that of any verifiable evidence. Great job NASA!).
The original NASA/Magellan image file (converted to @72dpi GIF format) http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif clearly shows all of this raw information, (remember that the Magellan images were those created from essentially NSA grade RADAR penetrations and therefore radar signal reflections, which can be and in this instance are simply vastly superior to that of any optical photographic means).
From the NASA converted GIF/photographic image, it takes only the most basic photo software in order to exploit this relatively small area (as little as 10% out of the original) so that features become more pronounced (not altered or in any way distorted). I tried several digital photo-software solutions, including COREL PHOTO and Adobe Photo Deluxe, and both seemed to accomplish the task without introducing indications of distortions or otherwise adding of anything in either case. The original raw file information is still all there, as proven by viewing the surrounding landscapes of major lava flows, rocks and erosions as all being equally enlarged showing much greater perceived detail.
I have provided onto several NASA web sites and sent many others e-mail of my information along with the enlarged imaged area (which I now refer to as "GUTH Venus"), and thereby I have forwarded nearly everything which I have uncovered onto several identifiable NASA individuals (trust me, when you are on a need to know basis, this is much easier said then done). Now it seems as though I am being mostly ignored and otherwise being informed by NASA that what I am seeing is still merely natural rock and that of common channel formations, not even a "thank you very much for putting all this together and bringing it to our attention on your own time and expense". I am beginning to understand that this may very well be the only option for our NASA at this juncture. I must have mistakenly thought NASA posted their exceptionally good images so that others (such as myself) could have an opportunity to help study, discover and research the possibilities, and I even thought that might actually require looking extremely close at their photos, but I guess not.
The following image is that of the original, in order to show the general location of my discovery.
Early on I was advising NASA about this discovery (apparently wasting my time) by sending my image enlargements and further attempting spark interest by offering my review of findings, although, as I've stated before, I found this difficult to raise any form of support (including that of a total lack of objective support from their moles entrenched at uplink.space.com). So, as a result, I eventually named this area of discovery as "GUTH Venus", mostly out of frustration due to repeated statements from NASA as well as their moles stating, among other missinformation, that there was absolutely nothing whatsoever to see other then common lava flows, rock and erosions. In spite of all this flack, and if this be the case, then I felt there could be nothing wrong with my claiming this discovery which NASA clearly places no importance, no further value and therefore of no worthy discovery nor support towards what I am stating is there to see. As I have stated before, I have continued by requesting their counter-support image(s) towards NASA's claim that even this is degree of such highly complex structured looking and arranged elements are simply common elsewhere on Venus, but so far "no cigar", as I have not identified nor received or otherwise located such documentation, just their repeated outright verbal and e-mail denials that anything of this nature could possibly exist on Venus. OK?, sorry about that!
In spite of what NASA states is not there, here is my basic rundown on what others and I believe is clearly apparent in image(s) mgn-72apd.JPG plus other images "GUTH-72W.jpg" and "GUTH-72W-info.jpg", (for the sake of this review, consider up as North); At the upper most (North of the major facilities area) is an extremely long and flat structure as a raised platform having two or three logically shaped (w/rounded bay corners) recessed service/storage bays which appear to adjoin underground accesses (some form of other structure(s) or equipment seems on the surface of this platform/runway, including that of an enormous elevator section). South of the platform/runway are that of rectangular and rounded structures, plus that of a rather substantial suspended causeway (at either end having major facilities with entrance and roof like features). Towards the left end of the main causeway may be either parabolic communication or that possibly of research/observation structures, plus there is a long incline/decline (possibly a steep tramway or simply that of the structural function of the main suspension) which adjoins the far Western (left) end of this causeway. Below this main causeway are several clearly defined structural features and pathways representing that of additional infrastructure, such as a fluid outflow or observation platform/ramp at the mid/center of a U shaped element. Directly East of the main causeway, located just below and along side the main lava flow channel is a relatively long structure(s) that might be factories or that of a power generating plant. To the ESE are many other large storage/reservoir considerations and further to the SE is quite possibly that of a very large monument, and just a bit further can be seen a substantial circular collection of pie-shaped reservoir/storage elements. To the SW is what I clearly view as an arch (also extremely large, and high and possibly that formed by a fluid consideration). Due south of the main causeway/intersection area is what certainly appears as that of an extremely tall volcanic vent (now having it's own causeway crossing it) that which may be utilized as a dump site or that of a mining operation. There are what looks as other suspension/roadway issues traversing the primary outflow channel which is situated/routed directly below the main causeway. Back at the main channel and just to the left of the platform/runway there appears an earthen dam has been established, along with a tunnel or perhaps a discharge/gate offering some form of flood/flow control feeding into the channel which travels directly under the main suspension causeway, where this channel flow is directed SSE into an extremely deep ravine/terrain like area. The depth of this ravine area is obviously exceptional, and where at the base could be holding fluids. Further to the West, above the lava flow channel, appears as a "switch-back" causeway/roadway having multiple hillside reliefs along it's path, and I can clearly make out the narrow bridge at the NE end, the road goes through a tunnel and then onto the bridge, a bridge having an larger object or bridge structure at midspan (this bridge is obviously crossing the main channel), and by the way, channels are not likely to be flowing lava these days, and this one my in fact not have ever been a lava flow channel. a bit further West is what was initially looking as a smaller road, however now this is somewhat more and more like a horizontal hanger/launch site facility. Further up into the NW area has been identified what appears as other large collection reservoirs, one round and the other clover shaped, looking connected and again very intentional at that.
Sorry NASA, but all this and a whole lot more is what we can identify, and if you like, I believe we (my growing list of privet supporters and I) can and will in time identify many other considerations, so, you should feel free to terminate all those employees that were in fact charged with this internal NASA responsibility, that of reviewing and researching all the possibilities, obviously that of discovering such things as structures (just think how much you can save, too bad you didn't accomplish all this 10 years ago and saved perhaps additional billions).
Do you not think; By the associations of those nearby rocks, cliffs and secondary erosions off the main so called lava flow channel, that this clearly helps to further verify the true nature of this Venus landscape, and thus further supports and qualifies this as a great perspective view, and thereby further upholds the exceptional value of imaging for this site as well as making it most capable for discerning that of potential structural and of infrastructure considerations ?.
Remember, the original NASA GIF image format basically offers all of this information plus some potential measurement capability, as the original image area/size per pixel (as according to one NASA resource) may represent as little as 25 meters (however, some at NASA have been suggesting as much as 225+ meters per original pixel). What ever the ultimate size, size is simply not what's at issue, as it is the structural shapes of clearly artificial elements along with having functional lines of large structures and causeways, as well as the magnitude of all those interconnecting and related issues, and there is also the near ideal location of this installation considering it's good elevation and having multiple accesses to the underground of Venus. In order to survive on Venus, I believe (going by what NASA as learned so far) one would likely need just such infrastructure at just such a location(s), plus I would think at least one other facility located half way around the planet (where each location remains night for the equivalent of 120+ Earth days) would be another likelihood.
Understand that the original NASA radar/image was acquired at approx 43 degrees, which as you and others should see by all that nearby terrain and rocks, supports an extremely good overall perspective, especially if you or I were to be looking for anything out of the ordinary, such as pathways or that of causeway lattice and especially that of vertically rectangular structures, especially more so of those offering rounded features as well as those functionally long and flat surfaces having adjoining underground access/service bays (just as this site clearly indicates).
In case you are still looking for the punch line, and have not a clue, this discovery is not a joke, its as real as it gets, just do not expect to receive proper support from NASA. I have tried this with extremely limited results.
Original full scale image location: NASA Magellan image
If you have not yet located this area on your own, the location of my enlargement as taken from the above original image, is that situated approx 60% from your left (towards your right), and 30% up from the bottom. Before you comment, I ask that you please accomplish your own enlargements and then also thoroughly review of this greater area, then you tell me and others, if what you are seeing is not that of intelligently constructed features, those clearly representing serious functionality and totally artificial.
Remember; NASA has thus far not been able to offer supporting images towards their claim(s), that what others and I am seeing at GUTH Venus is merely of common lava flows, rock and common erosion, as NASA has been suggesting other areas of Venus offer the exact same. I have given them all that opportunity plus for that matter from any imaged moon or other planet (including Earth) as having such naturally formed elements, as so elaborate and logically situated as with regard to my discovery site on Venus. We are talking months here, and well, you know, still so far no cigar.
In spite of NASA's postion, there are simply far too many interrelated elements to remotely consider all of this discovery as that of purely natural formations. But, even should this area become redefined as that of simply natural elements, this by itself could become the most valuable discovery to date, then even if so, getting the word out has not been easy, as so far NASA as well as their entire mole population has been hard at work discrediting this area as well as my efforts, as that not of any discovery or value, as well as avoiding some basic acknowledgments of my concerns or interest in resolving many other questions. And if it were not for their incredibly piss poor handling of that anti-Apollo stuff, I would not have even bothered to have taken a closer look at what nearly everyone was talking about.
As compared to so many other NASA adventures (some not so good), I believe we can most easily afford a return to Venus, and I would have to think with far better instrumentation, possibly even a robotic landing or multiple landings (at least one at "GUTH Venus"). We (NASA), as well as other Nations seem to already have this level of equipment technology (perhaps even in inventory), and working together we have the means to quickly deploy it. A massive Russian heavy lift launch could most quickly deliver an assortment of highly complex as well as robust instrumentation (Magellan-II) if not also placing a manned sub-space station into orbit of Venus.
With all the flack I've received, I can't help but feel something must be extremely and deeply wrong with NASA; I am concerned that I have been receiving essentially identical (scripted) replies to nearly all of my inquires, inferring the same exact wording to the effect that what I am seeing is merely common lava flow, erosion and rock as to be found elsewhere on Venus. However, when I have replied asking for their specific documentation regarding those other such areas on Venus or for that matter from that of any NASA imaging taken of any other planet, moon and even including Earth as offering anything remotely similar in the way of such naturally formed elements, as so collected and arranged as those which I discovered within GUTH Venus, will, it seems the line goes dead (no further response, perhaps their own "non-disclosure cat" has got their tongue. As an independent researcher/explorer, what do you think all this means?, Should I go a bit easier on NASA?. Offer me your questions and ideas as how to proceed, perhaps I can return the favor.
For document loading efficiency, the following image was cropped and then re-enlarged to 10x8 at 180dpi, and even at this relatively limited enlargement clearly shows structures and infrastructure of planned development(s) having intentional and/or highly probable format and function. These are not (as NASA states) all merely random lava erosion channels and highly unusually shaped rocks.
This collection of structures and facilities has been clearly situated on an elevated area, along side a substantial channel situated just above this highly engineered community. As to be clearly understood by secondary erosion channels, rocks, cliffs and that of the general landscape, this habitat area could most certainly be for real and functioning today. At this site are that of many other secondary issues and creditable details worthy of further study and discovery.
I now believe that a discovery of past or present life on Venus is simply not so much the preponderance of evidence that I have to offer, as much as it has been the preponderance of lacking evidence to the contrary (as that being imposed by NASA), thereby reassuring others and myself that something very real and positive has been reveled within my enlargements. The fact that NASA had years (nearly a decade) to thoroughly study and discover this same information, and was basically being paid to do just that, and furthermore has thus far been unable to respond with any examples of such similar image(s) (those taken from other areas of Venus or for that matter of other planets, moons and even of Earth) supporting the same or better collections but only of natural shapes and formations (as so strongly advocated by NASA), only helps towards my claim that this degree of orderly yet complex structured elements and considerable infrastructure seems highly unlikely as that of occurring from any naturally formed lava flows and/or erosions. Especially more so intriguing is when NASA responses to my inquires are seemingly so bound by their own approved scripts and/or "non-disclosure" policy, and all this seems to suggest only further likelihood of the possibilities, and that there is simply more to this discovery about Venus then NASA wishes to discuss and/or share.
Perhaps if "I" had been employed by NASA, under their "non-disclosure" policy, even if I had managed to discover what I now see, this Venus discovery would likely never have been released to the public, at least not unless by an official NASA department that was in the most dire need of achieving additional taxpayer support and thereby all the necessary super-funding of their next career/generation project. After all, merely going back to Venus was going to be too easy, and perhaps there was simply nothing sufficiently profitable (your ultimate job security w/benefits and entitlements) in that program, as compared to the realy serious big bucks of what's been going on ever since, especially with regard to NSA/DoD agendas.
I understand that humans (at least that of our species) could not have existed on Venus, let alone constructed anything so large and elaborate (we are not all that smart). But there it is, bigger then life, and YES, should you or your fellow undying braille NASA supporters ever want to prove that I'm wrong by dashing out at high-noon on Venus (preferably in your birthday suit), then you will have in fact proven that there is no apparent intelligent life here on Earth as well. So, what I'm still in the process of looking for is that of reasonable support, that of logical thinking that could perhaps better explain the function of such structures and causeways as clearly shown in all of my enlargements. For example: "guth-venus-180-A", however, if you have nothing but obsessive pre-approved NASA scripts of denial to offer, then please rejoin your friends (moles) at NASAs braille support group. By the way, I have several of my own braille image versions as pertaining to this same area, "mgn-72apd-info.jpg" plus several others, each with arrows and then my apparently sufficiently qualified descriptions (as no others have yet bothered to offer their ideas, so I must be totally right-on). In all fairness, I'll challenge those able to undertake demonstrations of their vastly superior photo software, plus then if at all possible to help our apparently braille NASA communities as well as others to properly review "GUTH Venus" as well as to further attempt locating and identify other such worthy sites on Venus.
On the other hand, could this area merely and solely be that of highly unusual (one of a kind) rock and lava-flow channel formations, just as NASA initially and has repeatedly proclaimed; that all of these structure and causeway looking elements are merely that of commonly to be found occurrences, and that there is simply nothing worthy to look at. I really don't think so, and remember, because NASA has so far been unable to support their claim by supplying such common images of their own, therefore and because I have also looked for such, I believe this denial consideration by itself offers a form of proof towards this being the first and only such valid discovery to date. Many others and I find it hard to accept this degree of complex elements are simply that of purely natural formations, as should most other truly clear thinking (sighted) individual perceive, as these shapely and logically arranged elements are most certainly that of extremely large structures, those having substantial infrastructure, clearly located at a most viable location and of sufficient elevation, clearly otherwise having the arrangements of functional building alignments plus many associated infrastructures that could easily be millions of years old or that of relatively recent developments. And if found as being more recent, then all bets are off with regard to this being anything but the most relevant greatest possible discovery to our space exploration and research program(s), as well as for all of mankind, perhaps even something to do with our ancestors or worse, the inhabitance of "GUTH Venus" could all be lawyers (just kidding).
A good possibility is that such structures could easily be remains of or present habitat of creatures that obviously adapted to their Venus environment, one would think somewhat highly evolved like some of our hybrid cockroaches or those New York rats we have heard so much about, apparently adapting within a few generations to otherwise lethal poisons, toxins, nerve agents and even radiation levels unsafe for humans. On the other hand, if being more human like, and obviously of far greater intelligence by the mere fact of surviving on Venus, then we need to discover everything, and as soon as possible (unless this is just another Easter Island , where the population wasted all of their remaining resources upon cold-wars, spying and idol worship, where all that is remaining is perhaps only the proof of their demise), because, if this Venus environment is as bleak as NASA and probably even you make out, any remaining souls may desperately need help getting off that hot rock. Do you not think!
It would be fair to consider that there could easily be yet another outpost or installation @180 degrees (that's halfway around the planet for those braille NASA supporters, East or West). This would make for a logical solution, as the Venus sunrise begins to super-heat their environment, and by packing everything up and migrating to their alternate facilities (now becoming dark and a lot cooler for the next 120+ Earth days), as this would obviously support some degree of added comfort and protection. I believe I have identified just that, other viable sites worthy of at least once supporting "life".
Apparently my photo software is not all that bad, as I was being so criticized by most of those at uplink.space.com (NASA moles). So, my challenge was and still remains for anyone of them to outperform, however, this has accomplished not one image better then what I have provided (NASA's braille imaging apparently still has a long way to go), so quite possibly not even NASA has anything better to offer, at least not at this time, as most of the serious imaging is now handled by our NIMA.
Perhaps if we all had access to their full Magellan radar imaging data file, even of just this area, along with the original supporting software and hopefully some of the original Magellan staff, I believe we could all do a better job, especially with regard to 3D imaging potential including that of ground elevations, at least that's the sort of support that I've been asking for.
Images as taken from: www.NSSDC.GSFC.NASA.GOV/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
You can and should do this for yourself, by first selecting this small area from the NASA original using most any photo software, by simply cropping out this area and then re-enlarging back to 10x8 (@72dpi) or you may re-sample at somewhat higher dpi should you not wish apply re-sizing. As you and others will clearly see, there have been no additions or distortions introduced to your new image, just a much better view of this same area (note: further proof is that all other associated features of the landscape have not been distorted nor altered in any way).
Now then, it seems fairly clear we are not going to have all that much support from NASA, as the original staff so capable of achieving such results are long gone, plus their remaining hands are probably full of past and overdue projects as well as with controlling and imaging Hubble ST (of course utilizing the vastly superior NSA CCD sensors) onto such matters as those clip boards being held by Chinese solders standing next to our spy plane, so possibly other researchers, including SETI.AU, could be invaluable resources to plunder. I sent SETI.AU my information, and only hope they have reviewed it and can find the time to help further explore this discovery.
OK, OK already;
Good luck, and many thanks to all those willing to further research and question this discovery.
Last updated on July 04, 2001
Copyright © 2001 - Brad E. Guth
All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: Brad Guth - BradGuth@yahoo.com