GUTH Venus offers life, in spite of NASA's "spin" and "damage control"
This page is going to keep referring you to certain attributes of Venus, as those being mostlikely artificial, as obviously a result and/or product of there being life, at least at some point in the history of Venus. If you are somewhat confused by the term artificial, meaning "not natural" and thereby as such meaning man-made or perhaps lizard-made or at the very least constructed by something that was larger than any microbe, as it obviously takes a degree of intelligence (not necessarily modern technology) in order to modify upon what's otherwise purely natural, as there are physical and geometric limits as to what natural geology alone can accomplish and retain over time and, there's also the associated signatures (most likely past/current events) affecting exactly how geology accomplished every natural aspect of every natural feat. However, with introducing biological evolution and a little ingenuity and/or technology (tools) applied, there's no limits as to what such biological intelligence can accomplish, irregardless of the odds and/or perhaps motivated specifically because of the odds.
Keep remembering that SAR imaging is what our NSA spy satellites rely upon, for darn good reasons, as SAR imaging virtually eliminates nearly every failing consideration of conventional photographs and as such has been offering far more planetary surface as well as artificial attribute truths then of the best CCD (nearly irregardless of the resolution). What SAR sees is about as nearly "extraordinary" as absolute "truth" gets, certainly of more truth than what the human eye can detect nor what which any film and/or CCD sees as an optically limited rendition, which are dependent upon a good number of variable conditionals and/or of potentially distorting factors and, still not the least bit capable of true nightvision nor of seeing through weather, camouflage nor that of ever determining upon the essential surface composition/content. SAR is darn near God's eye, at least so far there's been nothing better developed (sort of like what MRI has to offer medical diagnostics, there's simply no contest, as you can image all day with the finest of CCD technology and, of whatever is affecting the patient well likely go unnoticed, even in 3D animation along with custom surround-sound that's been so darn terrific for that of NOVA producing those terrific NASA info-commercials).
In spite of the ongoing consensus and orchestrated opposition to nearly everything Venus, the evidence is simply substantial, the methods of such observations are those sufficiently certified (certainly well above any Apollo standards) and, by that I do mean, every imaging (enlargement) process can and has been reversed to the very beginnings, thereby proving that there were no alterations, no distortions nor anomalies occurring. In other words, the imaging process always included the original raw pixel format (not even those Apollo images have offered that much) and, every example of enlargement essentially produces the exact same results, time after time. The enlargements have also been processed by a wide number of fully recognized photo software solutions and, even the raw original at 1:1 is entirely sufficient to those capable of seeing what's not so natural, as what's situated as surrounded by everything else that is recorded and certified as natural and, thereby lies the stark difference or differential as to what's most likely (duh!) artificial. These noticeable differences are those in spite of the opposition applying all their "spin" and "damage control" they can muster. I believe this image can be easily proven and reproven, as to identifying what's clearly to be seen as existing in plain sight as situated on the planet Venus, artificial structures, community infrastructure and there's plenty of science and physics that's making this all possible, in spite of how hot it is and more so, in spite of the "status quo" of orchestrated opposition.
The pro-NASA opposition to my research (formal and otherwise provided by their X-Borgs) has had nearly two years to offer and/or point out any other images depicting absolutely anything that supports that of what's existing on Venus (looking very artificial) as being of purely natural formations, or that the original Magellan SAR image was somehow selectively flawed at just this location and of two other sites. Oddly, they have NOT accomplished this supposedly simple task because, there's not a chance in hell that anyone can disqualify those original Magellan SAR images, nor that of any subsequent enlargements which have merely allowed others to better visualize upon what's blatantly existing on Venus, as those enlargements simply can not be so easily disqualified on any technical grounds whatsoever.
According to my esteemed opposition, absolutely everything on Venus is purely natural because, that planet has been simply too hot and as such, much too biologically fried and thoroughly dried out to dead as to have ever supported life, thereby everything on the surface simply has to be purely natural, apparently even if we still can't understand nor reference such other complex formations with any known/recorded geological occurrences on Earth, Mars nor of any other planet or moon (by now I believe we have several million comparative SAR images by which to relate to, still no cigar). This pathetic stance of Venus being thoroughly forever dead is based upon well established arrogance as well as propaganda instilling fear and superstition (just like the Hindenburg) and not of science nor physics. Additionally, there's been an overwhelming degree of ulterior motive (arrogance, power and multi hundred billion dollar greedy money trails as well as a few cold-war agendas to boot) as to seeing that anything "GUTH Venus" is suppressed to death.
First off; they have a number of serious problems with their "status quo". Firstly, the planet Venus was not always so hot and secondly, there's abundant energy just about everywhere you care to look (with energy one can fix whatever's hot) and thirdly, there's relatively good methods of converting that toasty CO2 into lots of free energy as well as extracting O2 and CO, plus there's been the availability of efficiently acquiring H2O from those nifty and cool nighttime clouds (cool as in meaning relative to the surface temperature and taking into account the atmospheric pressure), those clouds being far from anything boiling hot, just merely cozy warm and extremely moist clouds by Earth's standards. A forth consideration is that life has a way of becoming "Darwin", as evolving in order to acclimate to the environment or die trying (either way there's life). Perhaps the biggest problem with the opposition is "they're flat out lying", as known science and recognized physics easily proves that life could have existed and, with relatively little technology and evolution, life cold certainly have survived the present day environment on Venus, perhaps not just anywhere about but, most likely at certain elevated sites and by a nocturnal formula that allows for the resources of Venus as to being gathered upon and applied (that analogy of applied science and physics also includes rigid airships, remembering that an airship in that Venus atmosphere is nearly the same physics analogy as were those ships of Columbus and Magellan).
For complex life to have existed and survived on Venus, there's absolutely nothing whatsoever required of their having developed radio technology as for accomplishing this feat and, even if radio technology existed or became available for those of Venus, their requirements of radio frequencies and power levels would be relatively minimal and secondly, we've not been attempting planetary communications, at least not on any sufficient number of frequencies nor of sufficient energy levels as to penetrate those highly conductive and thereby radio shielding clouds. Unlike visible and near UV light spectrums, it takes a great deal of RF energy to propagate in or out of those thick (electrically conductive) Venus clouds, whereas extremely little energy as to propagate between the surface and those clouds, affording effective global communications could be accommodated via 5 watts at 10 Hhz, as those are simply not the sort of white fluffy Earth like clouds, but they are highly reflective as to a large degree of RF.
Getting the big picture; The larger artificial looking attributes are those of anything but natural formations. Since a good number of lesser associated attributes are also those more likely artificial than not, then of everything being so surrounded by what obviously is natural, thus distinguishing the larger and symmetrically complex considerations (meaning not the least bit like all the surrounding natural stuff) are those constructed features quite easily differentiated as being most likely artificial, unless yourself or someone other can point out how such structurally complex symmetrical attributes have or even can potentially be created by nature, as we're not talking about small complex crystal structures nor that of any other recorded geology. This tit for tat has been a good time to stipulate onto my opponents, "put up or shut up", so far I've stumped everyone and even so, our government has persisted with whatever it takes to "wag the dog".
The patterns which I've identified as being artificial, meaning constructed by a good deal of intelligence (obviously that being much larger than microbe), are simply not to be found in nature (at least not on this planet nor of any other recorded planet or moon). For nearly two years I've looked, as well as my opposition has looked and there's literally hundreds of thousands of those certified SAR images of Earth, for a darn good database of imaging knowledge, as to what's represented and proven as being natural as well as what's artificial, yet none of my opposition can seem to locate upon any such naturally formed patterns which are the least bit similar to what's otherwise so complex as existing on Venus. Countless SAR images of Earth provides good examples of large buildings, collections of various building structures, of otherwise intentionally constructed flat (tarmac like) surfaces, bridges, reservoirs (with and without fluids), of tank farms (round tanks in their rectangular settings), various roadbeds, excavations, tunnels and so on, all of which look nearly exactly like what's existing on Venus. Pixel per pixel and using the very same applied resolution imaging, where Earth structured items appear nearly exactly as those artificial attributes existing on Venus.
As much as others would like to prove otherwise, the photo software nor my own internal software did not fabricate those structures and associated community infrastructure out of thin or thick air. Those raw pixels exist and, as such good software and half a brain can easily connect the dots. Those refusing to connect dots and otherwise ignoring and/or bashing others capable of dot connecting are morally in error and, in nearly every instance I have identified a number of ulterior motives and hidden agendas entirely responsible for their actions. I know those folks have been lying in order to protect themselves as well as their associations and current boss. I also have come to realize that such individuals are some of the same responsible for our perpetrated cold-wars and of much worse.
Unfortunately for my critics, there are certainly sufficient comparable planetary features upon what has been naturally existing on Venus as being nearly exactly like what's existing as entirely natural on Earth, as well as for Mars and of lunar landscape features. As for whatever is all natural is quite well understood and as such, easily cataloged as just that, as for having numerous tit for tat comparisons to canyons, rilles, rock formations, tectonics and erosions of exactly what's existing right here on Earth, as imaged by the very same NSA/spy SAR technology. Lo and behold, of what's existing on Earth as being confirmed as natural or artificial, that's also exactly what's existing on Venus, as for having nearly the very same geological, tectonics and erosion patterns, with the exception that Venus has a good deal more lava flowing about. Thus, if what's being so natural about Venus is sufficiently true for my critics, then of what's never been recorded as anything natural must also be sufficient, especially where good science and physics permits life to exist and, where that very same NSA/spy SAR imaging depicts Earthly artificial attributes, then too should that same technology and "truths" apply to Venus.
Why shouldn't the NSA/spy SAR imaging that works for spying upon Earth, work as equally well for Venus?
Considering the rather large size of several of these artificial attributes, the original imaging resolution was sufficient, as much lesser dimensional considerations, comprised of the very same SAR pixel format, have long been considered as being most likely natural (natural terrain patterns depicting features of rilles, canyons, tectonics, rock extrusions and slides, erosions and of a number of recent secondary erosion considerations) are those sufficiently recorded as planetary surface features that were correctly imaged, thereby the larger attributes which contain a much larger content of pixels and of creating patterns found only in man made considerations, are in fact artificial by any comparison to what surrounding them as being so natural. The contrast between what's natural and of what's artificial is substantial.
The opposition has sufficient motive and just cause to discredit upon what I've discovered.
The opposition has good reason(s) to fear the truth.
The opposition has been extremely busy "wagging the dog", so much so that even the recent juncture of Venus which was sufficiently close and for a sufficient length of time, so as to influence Earth's weather, tides and tectonics, yet all was being avoided, as nothing Venus was ever officially published, not by NASA and not even by NOAA.
In order to suppress this discovery, I do not believe there is a carnage limit, by which those affected will not go to.