Frequently Asked Questions

(GUTH Venus / by: Brad Guth)


Last updated on February 05, 2002

How can there possibly be air transportation on Venus:
For one thing, it's simply not too hot for alloy constructed and obviously insulated technologies to provide adequate shelter (especially at nighttime and at upper elevations) and, it's obviously not too hot for such alloy steel airships and/or aircraft (in a hot environment, alloy steel based upon strength and especially endurance per pound is vastly superior to that of aluminum) and secondly, our warped ideas and understanding of history as it relates to flight is not the last galactic word. Technically, any civilization worth it's salt can achieve such capability and, least of all, not even in the same historical order. Of all the potential forms of flight, other then hot-air, the hydrogen concept is perhaps the most likely. On Venus, hot air may also have been attempted but ruled out because, the one obvious environmental element they seem to have an abundance of is that of having somewhat too much hot air, but this is exactly where hydrogen assisted flight would obviously thrive under such conditions and, of all the available elements, those most easily obtainable from within their planet would likely be that of hydrogen (something like just over 8.58 cubic feet lifts 1 pound on Venus). Even as a potential fuel for their propulsion engines, hydrogen-peroxide (H2O2) and alcohol offers one hell of a kick. Tell me of any civilization that hasn't discovered alcohol and I'll tell you a lie.

A thick (92 bar) atmosphere also applies extremely well into conventional aerodynamics. Combine this advantage along with their 80% gravity factor, now your talking about some seriously capable yet extremely compact aircraft configurations. If not VTAL in nature, then obviously requiring very limited runways, as their required air speed for takeoff and landing could be less then 1/10th that of here on Earth. And since their day/night periods are so long, perhaps speed is simply not at issue, 50 knots could be their idea of really zooming along.


How did I ever become the bad guy ?
Perhaps you should ask others because, all I did was to look through a few thousand high resolution images and, I only managed all of this because I was bored and/or insulted by all the pathetic anti-Apollo stuff, but then even much more so by NASA's answers to what I believed were fairly legitimate questions. I'll have to admit, myself as a qualified commercial photographer and equipment owner, I don't have a clue how NASA managed so many of their so called proof-positive images as acquired by all those highly trained astronauts and, I can't understand nor explain why there is so much to do over so many images as regarding their content. How can it be that dozens of official images acquired from supposedly widely separated lunar locations, taken at different directions seem to include the exact same background and, never once a brilliant reference star (not even from a Earth illuminated time exposure?). Then also because of all the unexpected flack my Venus discovery was receiving, there was only my simple little request for a qualified link to whatever documentation proof there was in supporting that our lunar lander (1/6th scale equivalent to lunar gravity) as film documentation depicting those test flights ever happened (I only recall seeing the one which failed big time). I have recently tried to locate supportive documentation, requested of others to share whatever they have found and, so far nothing has surfaced (could it be that the truth is what NASA fears the most, and if so, whom is going to have to pay for all the ensuing real as well as emotional damage).

In my early days and weeks of offering this "GUTH Venus" discovery onto others at NASA (as being so instructed by NASA as to continue doing so through space.com), a lot of what others had already been and then I also began to question, was having to deal not with scientific truth issues but with motives of those bashing anyone merely questioning NASA and, otherwise seeing those very same Apollo damage control individuals equally intent upon suppressing my discovery. This form of blatant opposition threw me for a while, at least until I eventually realized what had been going on. Perhaps all this opposition motive is best outlined in my URL page: moon-02.htm. All of this will obviously be eventually edited down to something the greater public can understand and, to expedite upon this effort, I could use some help, so don't be all that shy (if you are on my side, NASA can't bite, however, if you work for or are funded in any manner by NASA, I might advise that you should start wearing your flack suit and a very sturdy helmet).

I still have no problem with those opposing my discovery, as long as they offer their observational imaging that best supports their experienced expert interpretation as to what others and myself see at "GUTH Venus". As otherwise, it appears that my discovery is simply being intentionally bashed and/or ignored because, as time went on, there were a few too many Apollo as well as other issues dealing with capable imaging resolution questions that were simply not being faithfully resolved by my opposition and, few if anything positive regarding the planet Venus (except for applying NASA approved textbook scripts and that of my receiving extremely bad language as well as intentional e-mail spam) was materializing, as those opposing my "GUTH Venus" discovery were obviously and thoroughly unable to even demonstrate their expertise nor offering their observational examples (obviously because they don't have any such supportive examples), which meant that nothing scientific explains why all the unsupported opposition towards my discovery.


What if any analysis supports that the photo resampling has not introduced other elements:
First of all, SAR imaging (as a foundation of the raw digital original) is as close to providing "extraordinary" proof as imaging comes and, unless you are looking to discriminate artificial elements from the terrain that are significantly lessor then the raw resolution (which in this instance we are not because, all of the artificial content is simply quite large as well as sufficiently numerous).

Several enlargement methods and equally several alternate photo-software solutions have been tested and applied, where each has enabled and essentially provided nearly the identical enlargement capability, establishing nearly the exact same looking artificial elements (being those mathematically generated from the original raw GIF format). Plus my testing over 100 other sites of worthy interest have been equally processed in the same manner, in part to further test and verify my enlargement process as well as to endeavor to locate other potential (worthy) sites that could support signs of artificial development. And, in every instance the enlargements (digital processed re-samplings, including applying various imaging filters) affected the original raw image with similar capability and perception improvements, however, not so as to be causing unwarranted distortions or otherwise introducing altered or new formations to simply materialize. In every instance, natural terrain details clearly of lessor as well as larger considerations were of those expectedly random and, otherwise clearly natural formations were equally enlarged so as to best retain their likely form and detail, however, in none of these hundreds of test examples were the raw pixels (that of depicting common Venus terrain) being in any way reassembled into artificial and/or symmetrical looking formations, especially not as to being introducing highly rational and complex structures having logical infrastructure, as so obvious is the case at each of the "GUTH Venus" sites.


What valid research (observational astronomy imaging) otherwise supports the opposing claims, by which others so vigorously disagree with my findings:
This is where things get real spooky. Apparently my perceived threat has not been sufficient to unearth one single "proof otherwise" image, not one that would even remotely suggest that other areas of Venus are simply as equally unique and complex and, so as to be suggesting artificial implications and yet more so reinforcing that they were all purely formed by natural causes. In addition to my fairly extensive explorations of such other areas of Venus (as well as other planets, including Earth) and obviously besides those areas which I have already claimed as having signs of artificial development, it seems as though my discovery has in fact established solid merit that has not been overturned, yet obviously this is not sufficient for our highly benefitted crack wizards within Club NASA (exactly what their problem is, I haven't a clue, except for potentially regarding all those nasty bad things that may need to remain secret, at least until all those involved are either quite dead and/or sufficiently removed from being questioned, let alone held accountable).

In addition to my own extensive observational search efforts, as well as from all of NASA's efforts (including their entire external mole population), we have been unsuccessful at locating even one such image in support of the opposing claims, as that of sufficiently disqualifying "GUTH Venus", thus I to have been attempting to qualify NASA's position, that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever artificial to be seen. Now, the really odd thing is this; I've permitted those opposing my discovery (including myself) to obtain any such counter-proof image from any planet (including Earth) that even remotely supports their claims that such formations are common elsewhere as well as those which can be easily determined as being purely natural formations. Thus far nada, zip, nothing has emerged, and it's been 12 months and counting. So, if you have just such an image, I want to post a link to it, and I'll just bet Club NASA would too (right next to their extraordinary Apollo proof positive images).


Do I believe there is life existing on the planet Venus:
A very good chance of that being the case (far beyond microbes) because, at some point in cosmic history (a few million or billions of years ago) Venus was simply not so close to the sun (perhaps a bit more like Earths' orbit) and then obviously cooler (pre-greenhouse) having thinner or at least less dense atmosphere. Then obviously as time progressed, every planet (including Venus) slid evermore inward, as well as the sun itself was becoming evermore and more so unstable (basically hotter). Now, as our perceived evolution goes, microbes as well as all known creatures either evolved or died off and, those able to adapt obviously did so, and most likely those on Venus adapted in part by moving to their higher (cooler) ground as well as developed means by which they could live within the nighttime environment in order to simply survive. Now then, how damn hard is that to understand, and why should this possibility not be receiving the fullest attention in stead of official bashings?

For some ulterior motive reasoning, pro-NASA types seem to want others to believe that of all the planets, Venus evolution never could have functioned let alone evolved sufficiently to have permitted survival on Venus (what a bunch of pathetic bull that is and, if you choose to belive these pro-NASA types, then be so prepared to directly and personally support the greatest recall of the century).

Correct me if I'm wrong; all planets eventually diminish in orbit distance and/or basically have to somehow increase orbit speed as to sustain their existing location, and/or they simply spiral ever inward and further speed up in order to be where they are today (no exceptions, no planet whatsoever leaves this solar system unless the melt away, as eventually everything becomes one with the sun) and, is it not true that there is in fact no other known cosmic power source keeping Earth or any planet where it is indefinitely (true), and all suns similar to ours, over time grow unstable and somewhat hotter (no exceptions). So, why should it not be possible for substantial life to have evolved (perhaps first) on Venus, and further more, for that life to have eventually constructed their elevated final cities just as clearly being identified at "GUTH Venus". This form of observational evidence is not as of yet proof positive that life still exist, but it most surely establishes their past existence and/or most likely long term pre-greenhouse survival (if we continue to wait around long enough, NASA and the rest of us should not have much to be concerned over that "life" issue because, those remainders will all be toasted to a crisp, which by the way could have happened in just the past few years).


What about element size, atmospherics and temperature considerations:
Besides the "hot" and "toxic" issues, size is something that your typical pro-NASA type continually throws at the equation, supposedly this is one of their best arguments that "nothing whatsoever artificial exist anywhere on Venus", and yet, I simply contend that regardless of the original raw SAR pixel area equivalence, be it 25 meters, 75 meters or even 250 meters, those items (in total relationship to their natural surroundings) which I have identified as artificial, still clearly remain, and only their relative size is affected and not that of their not existing.

Because of the elliptical orbit which ranged from 275km to 2400km, the most likely raw (average) pixel size is at 75 meters or perhaps somewhat less, especially with any regard to highly elevated territories, such as at "GUTH Venus" (based upon an altitude or 618km and using the 2.5 aperture, my personal calculations place the raw SAR detection at 92 meters/pixel). Equally perplexing is with regard to temperature related arguments; and yes, I fully agree that Venus is generally damn hot as well as under considerable pressure, however, much like Earth and nearly every other recorded planet, as we travel into our higher elevations it is simply not so hot, and in fact at night on Venus (2900 hours worth), and then at elevations well above 5km (especially at 10km) it simply has to be substantially cooler (unless we are introducing something like mass quantities of plutonium suspended into their upper atmosphere as well as somehow saturated throughout their elevated soils). The hottest smog filled days of Earth summer, when I'm on top of Mt. Rainier it's still sub freezing. Perhaps this elevation concept is a revelation to NASA types and, that of obtaining a cooler nighttime environment at extremely high elevation is apparently a totally radical new and unproven concept to those within our all-knowing Club NASA, just as the fact that whatever the actual temperature and atmosphere turns out to be, these need not have to satisfy Earth human standards in order to exclude all other life form possibilities and, totally besides everything else, whatever the temperature or pressure or even the relative size, absolutely none of this explains away those highly complex structures and that of their rational infrastructures of constructed roads, causeways, multiple reservoirs, a suspension bridge spanning a Venus Grand Canyon, nor that of a raised platform runway/airport and so much other content. Hot, warm or cold, big or bigger yet, those artificial looking structures (as large as they may eventually be) still boldly exist and equally, those sufficiently evolved on Venus could actually be quite comfortable if not chilled at several hundred degrees.


AERODYNAMIC TRANSPORTS:
Within my URL pages, I have clearly stipulated about plausible air transport capabilities and, this discovery (considering the other two elevated sites located at approximately 180) supports a valid solution of their easily transporting large numbers of individuals as well as supplies to the opposit side of their planet, where it is just becoming dark (sunset) and likewise cooling down for the next 2900 hours. Apparently, Club NASA perceives this concept as totally impossible (I'm beginning to wonder, what do they really know for sure, because I can't seem to locate such documentation that precludes such). Therefore, and apparently, that distinctively looking (obviously quite large) silo/hanger complex housing what looks as a very (extremely) large airship, is simply (according to NASA "truths") that which was formed purely naturally by apparently under highly unusual (another one of a kind in the known universe) circumstance of extreme lava-flow and into spectacular horizontal rock formulation which also formulated that spectacular bridge crossing their Grand Canyon (yah right!, you've got to be kidding. What the hell are those NASA guys smoking?).


Can we even communicate with Venus:? (absolutely YES) (have we even tried ? : absolutely NO)
I believe communication is likely as well as technically feasible through various methods (in addition to and besides radio). Coded (properly sequenced) laser like (involving mostly of the visible spectrum) transmitting logical coded messages, as simultaneously emitted from multiple Earth and hopefully satellite based sources (possibly including optical telescopes re-configured as light/signal source emitters), a signal repeated (globally synchronized) say every 15 minutes [24/7] and obviously directed at Venus, could sufficiently penetrate their upper atmosphere, such as at "GUTH Venus" or perhaps at least sufficient to reach one of their high altitude research/observational crafts. The second costlier option involves our engineering and deploying fully inner-active two-way audio/video (obviously hot environment rated, but then we know of how to insulate as well as how to apply other geothermal heat exchanging) drones and/or transceiver(s) directly onto the surface of Venus, and once again, only to be situated at the higher (cooler nighttime) elevations such as that available at "GUTH Venus". A support relay satellite or preferably that of a manned mission acting as a platform orbiting or perhaps geostationary over the planet or of that at least of a 2900 hour station-keeping [L2] so as to always be on the protected dark side is technology within Earths' expertise. Otherwise we simply have another near miss opportunity to deal with, come October 2002, from September through much of November, we will have a sufficiently close encounter of merely 0.271AU (roughly 25 million miles). Of course we'll have to stop blowing up Nations and people, and otherwise infecting and poisoning everyone at least long enough to make all this happen, and that might obviously be asking a little too much of NASA/C&D.

Is there a workable plan for a manned mission (L2 expedition) to Venus:
No, but as far as I can determine, there are complications but not absolute unknowns, and therefore the answer should be clearly YES. With focus and diligence we can accomplish a viable mission (including that of privet investment sponsors, plus various enterprise opportunities as well as that of our accommodating sufficiently wealthy passengers), God forbid, we should actually show a profit. I have just such a plan in the works and, I could use experienced input as well as early investors (obviously this is for those of the most extremely high risk orientation, as this risk should easily put all those failed .COM investments to shame, but what the hell, you can only live once and, guess what else, you can't take it with you, but you might be able to buy yourself a ride to Venus). At the very least we need to deliver new SAR type instrumentation capable of 10 meter or better resolution (we already have this and, I'll bet the latest NSA-spy satellite can do 1 meter) as well as deploy to the surface several two-way audio/video (interactive) transceivers. I believe this deployment effort can best be accomplished by having a manned platform situated at L2, if not also that of a fully reusable shuttle. Another consideration is that the L2 position should offer this mission 188% protection from the sun.


Do I perceive that something has gone terribly wrong within NASA:
Ooo yes, and how exactly should I put this; our infamous Club NASA has indeed managed to become the cloak if not the hub of our Administration's NSA/DoD dagger and perhaps even that of supoporting our CIA agendas, clearly supporting the high tech means by which we as Americans have already harassed the likes of the once stable USSR, and we're obviously still working on annoying China, somewhat overly involved now with the Middle East and apparently plan upon eventually ruling the Universe, at least as far as our Earth is concerned. (Brother!!!, do we ever need a for-real Godfather patriot/saint or what.)


Is there potential of any official ruse ever becoming lethal as with respect to those on the inside:
Of course there is. Any such agency this powerful (especially associating with the cloak and dagger likes of NSA/DoD and so thoroughly commissioned into cold-war against the USSR to their death) has external as well as internal threats galore, otherwise why all the requirement and subsequent (potentially lethal) enforcement of that "non-disclosure" policy, especially where it pertains to Earth agendas, such as our never ending cold-wars. Hiding the truth becomes paramount, and each ruse layer re-affirms the previous, and where the ultimate penalty for violating club policy may in fact offer no other choice. Try to remember, in war (including cold-war) there are no rules, and if you think there are or should be rules, will think again (not even considering the Apollo issues, just taking a truthful look at the USS Stark and USS LIBERTY fiascos and our ever deeping relationships into that 6-day war should bring home some answers, but not likely what you might like to hear). If you think the worst is over, think again. Our administration may have quite a lot to explain in the coming months, as survivors of the 6-Day war and now those of 9/11 start putting two and two together and, even the whole Kennedy story may need to be reopened (recalling the time-line when all was not so well with NASA in the beginning years and of what happened next, then as a result how our NSA/DoD basically took over those Apollo missions), President Kennedy may simply have become an unacceptable cold war risk factor.


Did we land on the moon: (therefore can we safely re-utilize that same 30+ year old supposedly proven technology)
Of course we did, I mean that's what NASA proclaims, however, I simply no longer have a clue as to how that happened or even where to find sufficient independent collaboration (even though I was essentially there at the time, watching TV and reading all about the events and, yet as far as I know, we today still don't have that capability, at least I can't seem to find any such a pilot controlled "fly-by-wire modulated rocket pod in use of any form, especially one capable of such a substantially long down-range descents plus having such capable reserves so as to re-orbit), and, I must have been one of those fooled by the best of the best, and most assuredly by those having "the right stuff". Apparently Club NASA simply failed to record (film) those all essential successful lunar lander test flight(s), I am referring to the all essential documentation filming where our crack wizards engineered that 1/6th scale fully functional version (matching lunar gravity) so that every aspect of our early (fly-by-wire) pilot modulated rocket flight and stability controls for a spacecraft continually loosing weight (massive fuel burn off) and thereby having to deal with a continuously variable center of gravity could be refined, verified and above all else offer sufficient pilot training by actually flying the real thing. I seem to only recall those test flights that were tethered and, at that so highly unstable they subsequently crashed and exploded (every time), but never did I recall, nor can I now locate even one successful (tethered or untethered) example, yet somehow our crack wizards (behind closed doors) and at the very last minute managed to fix virtually everything (talk about your leap of faith and pure guts). Apparently our astronauts learned how to actually hands-on fly the damn thing purely on lunar location (boy, are we good or what). I bounced these concerns and a few other questions plus several dealing with lunar technical issues regarding those admittedly piss poor lunar mission photos off several cult NASA moles within their "uplink.space.com" semi-privet NASA domain (Jesus!!!, talk about your over reaction, core meltdown). Be sure to wear your flack jacket if you intend to oppose anything NASA stands for.


Why has NASA not made their move on this truly incredible Venus discovery:
That issue should already be or soon become obvious, however, I'll try to explain this, but remember, even I have not fully uncovered all that seems to have caused this willful lapse in their sworn duties. All that I have been able to figure is this; Club NASA has been simply too busy covering their butts, and still so much over those Apollo issues (much has been based upon the pretext that Apollo-11 accomplished what we've been told), as well as shredding documents tying NASA into past or recent NAS/DoD/CIA cloak and dagger agendas. This damage control issue has been ongoing and therefore nearly all consuming of their dwindling resources, sufficiently so as to have simply interfered with their other sworn responsibilities, and thereby I believe affected their overlooking and essentially prevented this discovery opportunity for at least the past 10 years (as well as after the fact for the past 11 months and counting). And, if we were to tally up what has been happening since the initial Apollo mission, plus all of this overlooked discovery delay has obviously cost taxpayers hundreds of billions, and to which we still have nothing alien to show for it (not even that bone dry yet clumping lunar soil). So perhaps, how would it have seemed (especially to the Senate appropriations committees) if an outsider as myself came along, showing where we should have been looking and focusing our attentions and resources (as of at least 10 years ago), and further suggesting that a mere 10% of what has already been blown away would have been sufficient to have contacted life and at least established multiple two/way communication links with Venus. I would also have to believe; this NASA oversight further resulted in many other expenditures (billions) being wasted, as well as now having to potentially deal with my new found perspectives could be downright embarrassing issues if not potentially lethal to the security and incomes of others.


Should we not be looking towards deep space rather than Venus:
According to NASA and their "for serious profit" partners, besides eventually recovering lethal microbes from Mars at 250 million dollars, deep space is apparently where it's at, and not otherwise some for-sure next door bet having to do with Venus or perhaps better yet our moon. Just reviewing the past ten years and the next 15 years worth of NASA programs should tell you exactly where we have been and where we are headed (that is if we manage to live that long). By the way, we do have sufficient resolution to verify those lunar missions (Earth based radar scan imaging is truly impressive to say the least [1.5 meter], and now our combined/adaptive optical instrumentation is becoming nearly as equal, so don't go about asking me for extraordinary proof when others are not being allowed to perform their research should that effort include detailed imaging of our own moon). Anything lunar is a NASA "no!, no!".

Just for the fun of it; Let us presume one of our costly deep space endeavors clearly establishes that an artificial coded signal exist, and furthermore, that this represents the true source of all cosmic/universal knowledge (access to the full cosmic DNA code for example). Well now, all we have to do is send a reply. You think?, A transmission delivery of merely a thousand or perhaps a million or so years worth, and then standby for another equal period of time for their reply, or we could simply go their (say at 1/10 light speed, that's 1.1 million miles per hour: can we even do that?), and I guess all that should work (yah right!). Or perhaps we could relax and focus upon clearly obtainable goals, those most likely offering real tangible considerations, of which little if any new technology need be invented, and of that, which we can affordably manage (including that of a manned L2 mission/expedition to Venus) for our eventual return to exploring the planet Venus (but that might be too easy and too cheap, and besides, that degree of clear mission focus just might interrupt the status quo, and God forbid, we simply can't have that that much focus). The whole concept of our national base of astronomers and mass bodies of their students not being able to waste billions, sneeking in those C&D agendas plus our badly under-funded NASA not being allowed to function/concentrate fully upon their true cloak and dagger affiliations with the likes of NSA/DoD/CIA agendas, this concept would likely be unthinkable.


Do I believe there is anything that can truly salvage Club NASA:
Maybe YES, maybe NO.
I have many solutions, all workable, all affordable and otherwise fully tailored towards purging (decontamination) of NSA/DoD/CIA agendas from any publicly as well as privet sector sponsored research and subsequent exploration. Setting up a replacement (hidden agenda) United Nations C&D agency, such as: UNASA/CD (Cloak and Dagger) which must clearly include our trench coat friends within our NSA/DoD/CIA agencies, and whatever else suites their devilish fancy, and otherwise establishing anew (Global) GASA as that which accomplishes the true and honest space research and exploration (totally devoid of NSA/DoD/CIA agendas), and that which also openly collaborates with privet enterprise, thus eliminating most if not all that "non-disclosure" crap as well as diminishing the dependency upon taxpayer support.


Am I suggesting that the ultimate ruse may have in fact started with those Apollo missions:
Prior to December 2000, I would have looked the other way, now, I can't help to believe so, as the evidence simply does not support otherwise, especially when our cold-war against the USSR was perceived as so intense and real, that is if you believed in what our government was telling us, which at the time I did, and believed nearly everyone else did as well. Initially, the moon race may have been a well intended technology race, with NSA/DoD overtones simply taking over, especially once Kennedy was out of the way. Ever since, our entire foundation of knowledge and truths may have been tainted far beyond what most are willing to accept. I have developed a few too many such paragraphs, perhaps not so will written, but none the less apparently a little too close to the fundamental truths. If you have supportive documentation that eliminates or at least isolates NASA from such cloak and dagger agendas, I'm all ears, and I'll gladly post such links to your pages, so don't be shy. Again, I'm not the bad guy, just the messenger.


Was there ever just cause for our perception that the USSR was in any way a threat to our American way of life:
At first; based purely upon what our own government was telling us, perhaps yes, at least up until my latter high school years (1962/63), I was fully supporting the common knowledge base that everything USSR represented was all bad and represented a ongoing real threat, as well as did essentially everyone I knew equally if not more so were convinced this was so, but over the years and especially today, in looking back and searching for the facts, I can't say as much, and this is not that any perceived threat has altered over time because, as far as I've been able to uncover, there never was any viable threat in the first place (including Cuba), as everything was purely fabricated or intentionally blown totally out of proportion by our "for profit" and possibly "just for the thrill of it all" NSA/DoD agencies, of which the USSR rightfully became deathly afraid of, and all this was clearly perpetrated by those US agencies being for the most part funded by you and me (as soft moneys only became openly apparent in our latter efforts to overthrow and/or terminate the most recent Cuban leadership existing as a much needed replacement of the otherwise fully corrupted Cuban government previously owned outright by our not so nice American mob interest, as that clearly sustaining an illegal tax free gambling refuge as well as essentially a slavery state (with the exception of those working for the mob) purely for that of American profits, and not exactly comprised of your everyday nice upstanding sort of American guys). And, even if we did not agree with what and how our moneys were being misdirected into such culvert agendas, by now our government essentially had us by our pathetically uneducated yet heavily indoctrinated brains (some may refer this as being thoroughly snatched by our genitals).


Are there NASA ties to the modern day unrest and to recent history events (such as 9/11):
I can't help but believe so. You simply can not so intentionally create and then go about stimulating and punishing factious enemies (as purely perpetrated for the sake of "war-games" and/or "for profit" global domination), with the obvious intent of inflicting massive economical losses as a result of perceived superiority threats (such as from our race to the moon) without also inflicting or at least expecting serious consequences. Any nation reaching for goals which clearly extend beyond the common resources of those attempting to challenge their perceived enemy, has but only to subtract those vital resources of hundreds of millions of man hours (in our instance, hundreds of billions of overall cold-war cost), as that clearly being diverted from otherwise worthy humanitarian goals (such as, how about simply a little honest space research and exploration or how about a little investment into "world peace" or just towards improving humanity in general). You can not selectively assist any given ethnic group (such as NSA/DoD support via satellite communications, GPS, spy grade imaging and such spy ships as the USS STARK) without fully expecting the opposing sides to take notice, and furthermore, you can not allow and/or witness atrocities and then simply provide the cloak for such actions without expecting some form of future reprisals ("what goes around comes around" and, 9/11 should have been a clue).


How close have we come to losing the farm:
On several occasions, simply too close; especially with regard to chemical and biotechnology as well as nuclear extermination potential (not necessarily by the hands of our perceived enemies, but from within). We today, as just one such capable nation, are proudly holding sufficient toxic and biotechnology capability to destroy nearly every living human and animal on Earth, plus sufficient nuclear to polish off or at least sterilize whatever is left (several times over, even with 1/3 of our inventory). The Cuban incident was a good example of what not to do, but we did it anyway, and not rightfully based upon what had been established in Cuba, as this limited (low yield at best and not otherwise ever materializing one Soviet document that formally identified those specific neuclear capable missiles as having actual nuclear warheads) arsenal was merely defensive and perhaps otherwise capable of damaging a few Florida beaches (+/-10 miles targeting capability at best). More to the point were that of our for-real looking (intentionally configured as not to be perceived as simulated) mock mass nuclear attack-force invasions of Russia (that of actual deep territorial penetrations), merely to probe and if need be provoke in order to test their technology and resolve (little did we realize at the time they knew those were mock invasions, thanks only to good spies and because, otherwise we could have had our butts wiped, and in a thermonuclear way). And don't forget our most recent "in your face" tactic which recently and very badly intimidated as well as thoroughly insulted those Chinese heathens (and remember, I'm not the one perceiving them as heathens). When will we ever learn, perhaps not any time soon, and worse, perhaps not soon enough.


Sorry about all the misspelled and difficult grammar issues. I'm fighting a mild form of dyslexia and otherwise my writing form is suffering simply because I'm just so royally pissed off at how pathetically our NASA has managed the past as well as for now. The proof that our NASA could have somehow managed what they did is showing itself as exactly why those very same individuals, followers and worshipers claim they can see anything whatsoever on Venus and therby justifying their reasonsand/or motivated logic towards eagerly (apparently at any and all cost) disqualifying the "GUTH Venus" discovery. Anything whatsoever that puts their pagan God at risk is to be so disqualified regardless of the "truths" (proper spelling or not). Eventually, I intend to fully re-write and publish everything as well as portions dealing with my initial NASA exposure and that pertaining to their damage control efforts via "space.com" moles. Keeping in mind, if it were not for those pro-NASA types and their official moles at space.com, I certainly would never have bothered to look so critical at all those Apollo issues. Now, I'm damn glad I did, as it explains a lot more then I ever expected and, probably a lot more then you should ever know.


Brad Guth / IEIS __ 1-253-8576061

URL: http://geocities.com/bradguth