This will simply be yet another way of others and myself critically looking at the "extraordinary" proof issues, such as I have been having to deal with in regard to "GUTH Venus" for the past year. This time as though all of this discovery merit were having to be openly reviewed from an entirely NASA approved format. Yet all of this is still somewhat new to myself because, it makes so little sense but, none the less, this is obviously a fully tried and proven perspective that obviously was qualified as to work for all of those NASA's Apollo programs and then some.
Considering the degree of unexpected opposition I've received (like, what else is it that researchers do all day), so, I thought it would be a darn good idea to look at this from such a totally fresh perspective, similar as if I had accomplished something as spectacular as those Apollo missions and, if I had to then show and/or demonstrate exactly what had been accomplished in order to get paid (reimbursed). In other words, I would have to put up the evidence and pray that this board of review (essentally before the Senate appropriations) would accept my findings.
Let us say that I've approached just such a discovery review board, where in order for my fundings to be formally approved as well as whatever funding coverage and extended for the second phase, it was going to be purely up to the determination of this review board to support or reject my findings.
Let me start off with my formal opening documentation, listing and/or cataloging my massive yet locked away forever inventory of photographic evidence, much of which is comprised of tens of thousands of now inaccessible negatives, a great number of which are those of photographic high resolution as well as of exceptionally good contrast depth (commercial black and white fine grained emulsion) medium format 70mm film. Nothing but the very best of equipment as well as film.
Now, lets consider that I only allow a few hundred of these negatives (purely those of my choosing) to be printed and, at that I choose to not disclose where or whom did all this processing and/or of the final enlargements, nor do I ever offer those original negatives under any circumstances to be reviewed or scrutinized by anyone. So far this is exactly what worked perfectly for NASA, so this method should be totally sufficient as for my explorartion discovery.
Secondly; I thoroughly renounce anyone suggesting that multiple images taken from widely dispersed locations, as well as supposedly at different angles with respect to the mission origin or landing site are not the least bit questionable (simply because each image is showing the identical background formations), as all of these were simply factors due to the photographers electing to do so with no apparent regard for gathering a good 360 degree perspective of the area and, perhaps because all the other backgrounds were simply boring to look at. This all passed the standards of NASA's claims.
Thirdly; any perceived illusion of there being any "hot spot" illuminations is not from that of artificial lighting and, that it was because such hot-spots were those caused by the sun, as at the time it was being focused via gravitational forces, forming a cosmic gravitational lens and, thereby creating a concentration not otherwise possible on Earth. Here, plenty of highly paid and obviously super-smart experts will be equally capable of reassuring the committee that all was on the up and up and, sure enough, this tough standard obviously worked for NASA. So, unusual hot-spots are not ever a factor.
Forth; that of there being highly unusual fill-in lighting was merely also a result of perhaps focused solar flares, extremely rare but then again influenced by that same gravitational lens effect, sufficiently so as to cause only selective (out of frame) areas of that horizontal 10% reflective (gray) surface to substantially outperform that of an intentionally stark white vertically reflective studio illumination surface. Again, this acid test passed by flying colors for that of meeting NASA's Apollo standards.
Fifth; just because my photo documentation can show images acquired by the same camera and film, as those clearly depicting stars surrounding my planetary lander module, that's not any concern of why out of all the tens of thousands of surface landscape images taken (always having a totally black sky because there was no atmosphere), none of which depicts sufficient stars (most showing none whatsoever) so as after the fact to avoid having to waste time and resources determining the actual photographer's location as that based upon the date and time and thereby location of exposure (my astronaut was there, so there was absolutely no point in acquiring such star references). This star-less result is simply also a coincidence because, those stars were simply so damn bright that my photographers had to do everything possible so as to minimize their distractive influence upon the view of the otherwise breathtaking landscape images. here again, NASA's standards hold true as to why certain items show and others do not. This is exactly the same for "GUTH Venus" except, my imaging was purely SAR, so there is no question as to content "truth".
Sixth; there was no film radiation damage whatsoever because the cameras, stored film and spent film were all fully shielded as well as thermally insulated full time, all toll with a couple hundred pounds of pure gold and, even though there was a radiation exposure that often exceeded 0.1Sv (10 rads), not only was the film fully protected but also my crew was unaffected because their full body space suits we basically made as well of pure gold (about 100 pounds worth per suit). And, just because none of those suits indicate any latent radiation exposure is not to say they didn't have such exposure and simply defended all that off without a hitch. According to NASA records, there essentially was no real concern over radiation, so this point is somewhat pointless. My SAR images were those subjected to massive radiation however, that issue is truly a proven non-issue with respect to SAR imaging.
Seventh; besides all my photographic evidence of allowing only that of secondary access as well as merely from that of uncertified photo reprints and/or inner negatives, the reason why all of my samples of planetary soil and rock have eventually checked out as being Earth like, this is because my discovered planet was obviously once a part of Earth. Otherwise, the reason why the soil samples do not perform the same as they supposedly did on the discovered planet is again because of that cosmic gravitational lens, which obviously can't penetrate Earth's atmosphere so as to make this soil clump from with a vacuum chamber where all of the moisture has been removed, as to simulate the original planetary environment. Modifying the record to suit the evidence is something that's apparently done all the time, so once again, my record stands firmly along side that of NASA's.
I may have forgot to mention; My other planetary discovery (having nothing whatso ever to do with the issue above) of "GUTH Venus", was that acquired purely of certified digital SAR technology and, taken at a truly great perspective of 43° plus, everyone has full access to the original raw image. Therefore, the "extraordinary" photographic proof is truly exceptional, especially for the purpose of achieving detection of artificial aspects, vastly surpassing anything of conventional or of CCD format and besides, every aspect of my "GUTH Venus" imaging enlargements can be openly verified to death. Absolutely no way of slipping a damn thing in, nor that of removing anything without being easily detected.
Eight; this has to do with my pre-mission documentation loosing major and essential film footage of my all essential lander test flights (sort of like those ENRON documents conveniently disappearing as well as that Apollo safety engineers documentation being vaporised by a train). The fact that the only surviving public record shows my lander as unstable, crashing and exploding is because of yet another similar mishap that basically vaporised all of our recordings, including all of the successful flight documentation footage, so there is nothing to show. Sorry about that. We even lost nearly all of the fundamental engineering documentation, including the list of everyone that ever had anything to do with it. Who can argue with lost documentation records, especially these days, that happens all the time (I would require volumes just to relate to all those lost historical documents and, if you would care to ask, I'll gladly oblige).
So, I am to guess, if we were to accomplish this planetary exploration mission all over again, I would have to start from scratch with lots and lots of new tax dollars, sourcing of all new engineering teems, new suppliers and obviously new film documentation equipment and, this time around, obviously plenty of those fire proof storage lockers for everything.
All you guys need to do is to trust me, as basically I have the answers for every possible one of your concerns, so, all of you on this upstanding discovery qualification and thereby appropriations review board should simply trust absolutely everything I have to say, just like you did for NASA and, otherwise keep forking over the cash (or else).
Thank you very much, it's been good doing business with all of you. And, please don't open your fat envelopes until you're completely alone, it's very personal stuff.