BASHING begets BASHING

Right off the top;  I did not start this knock down contest, I'm only returning the warm and fuzzy favor. I started this effort long after multiple attempts and months of delays at communicating what I felt was potentially existing on Venus, as further perplexed by my subsequently expecting of those so oddly opposed to my discovery, to simply "put up or shut up", as otherwise, I remained fully open for all critics as long as they offered something (anything) in support of their observational expertise. Quoting from the NASA bible doesn't count, as any Borg fool can do that one, I certainly did so up until a couple of years ago. Besides, there are countless revisions or simply new data that has superseded much of what was understood about Venus prior the Magellan mission, as well as some since, that's not even including what I've come across.

So once again; what's the true motive or the ulterior motives for bashing this discovery in the first place?
What could anyone have to gain or be protected from, by their bashing away at a mere planetary exploration issue, one that's likely still holding onto life?

GUTH Venus is hardly anything all that astronomy any more. That's certainly because of those planetary images acquired by the Magellan mission, where now it's more like your being conscious and looking out the damn window of a high flying aircraft, while utilizing SAR binoculars, viewing at the near ideal 3D perspective of 43 at that. In addition, your SAR binoculars are grabbing 4 to 8 nearly instantaneous looks per 8-bit pixel. There are simply no lighting nor lens illusions nor perceptible distortions. Obviously this means that you can't remain on that bar stool at Club NASA and expect to see one damn thing. I mean, how much better does aerial imaging and subsequent observation have to get?

First of all, for the purpose of my returning a good favor; I can not hardly discriminate NASA from their official associates, those clearly acting on NASA's behalf, as their agents and under-cover moles situated within such web sites such as "uplink.space.com", where this "space.com" site is just one of dozens jammed full of interesting topics, those mostly dealing with tax funded or tax deferred issues (that means while millionares invest into their pet astronomy and the the likes of KECK-II, that you and I have not only been paying their share of taxes but otherwise funding various phases and then paying dearly for the use of the same), which just like nearly all the rest of "space.com", such services and/or protected and subsequently defended programs are those nearly entirely funded by the taxpayers (in one way or another) and that's having been funded by the likes of you and me.

If all of astronomy were gathered up, with their truly grand investments truthfully calculated (including interest upon their investment financing overhead), to be including the many grants, endowments and tax discounts or deferments and to be including all related properties and real estates and associated institutional infrastructures, along with their staffing and students; lets face it folks, we haven't received all that much in return, at least that hasn't lead us into furthering cold-wars and subsequently the likes of 9/11 reprisals. For what it's worth, we do not yet have a vastly superior (by a factor of at least 100) lunar KECK-III, instead folks, we have ourselves a Hubble that's costing you and me many times more then anything lunar based and instead, according to those NASA "Dead Sea Scrolls", Hubble limits out at a pathetic 80 meter lunar resolution (which by the way has been a flat out and intentional disinformation lie). The most obvious reason why we don't have a lunar KECK-III instead of that pathetic Hubble is, NSA/DoD agendas do not require a lunar astronomy platform and, obviously could not utilize such to the extent that they can utilize Hubble.

The pretense that anything independent as far as true research or assisting others towards any viable research goal has most recently become a joke, an insult to anyone's intelligence, as yet another pathetic lie or ruse extension upon the taxpayers. There is but one primary goal of "space.com" ("DAMAGE CONTROL") and, that obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with supporting open research and/or exploration. The ulterior motivation seems to help deliver and/or support info-commercials as news worthy considerations, intended as to further drive the public's support of such things (sort of like ENRON/Andersen on steroids).

Secondly; The original astronomer(s) of this Magellan series of images was, for all intents and purposes, NASA and/or NASA/NSA/DoD, along with a very large team of highly paid and perhaps of those still highly benefited within Club NASA and, supposedly these were all smart individuals. I can suppose there were many others under thier wings as conmmissioned (officially funded) as to observationaly explore and subsequently explain Venus, where all of this has been considered for twelve years and counting and somehow, over that extended time frame, they simply never saw anything artificial and apparently still don't see a damn thing.

After the fact of my pointing out this wee little discovery oversight, it appears that ulterior motives have become the only true issues blocking the way, as scientific considerations certainly have not represented sufficient cause to dismiss "GUTH Venus". The fact is; when I've openly exchanged my "extraordinary" SAR imaging proof against what the opposition had to offer, well, it seems as though my opposition has nothing and as equally little support of many past NASA achievements. So, why all the fuss and demand upon my discovery, especially when NASA can't manage to similarly support those Apollo missions (they have all the original photo negatives; don't they?)?


After a full year and a half worth of concerted discovery opposition, try asking yourself this; Did NASA have sufficient motivation to pull off the Apollo missions?
(of course they did and, they clearly had the responsibility as well as far more motivation as well as the overwhelming means by which such historical events have been fostered). So what's the big deal? We're damn good, at least at something.

Are there still risk and sufficient rewards associated with the Apollo fiasco?
(besides all those directly related that apparently had to die, lets just say, absolutely there are still ongoing risks towards established and maintaining agendas and of obvious historical secrets galore).
As far as rewards; how about that of lifetime employment, loads of cult perks, extended family benefits, power and glory just to name a few, then there is our pretentious international NSA/DoD agendas and enforcement capabilities based upon our perceived global superiority (that's certainly a big enough issue by itself).


So far, the past year has thoroughly proven the "GUTH Venus" discovery as not just being somewhat right, but perhaps a little too right about the ulterior motives attempting to suppress not only the discovery but also those lingering Apollo issues. Because my discovery is all about exploring via observational astronomy and, if after a year there remains no observational evidence that supports my critics, then that leaves but ulterior motives and, apparently of what I've discovered (in addition to "GUTH Venus") has obviously become more valuable to existing agendas as to my being dead then alive. I'm referring to hundreds of billions in wasted tax dollars that went in part for space research and exploration (otherwise mostly into NSA/DoD agendas) just over the past decade and, hundreds of other billions which are slated for the next decade, neither of which decade offered one program or focus towards the planet Venus (in light of what I've discovered, that sort massive agency wide failure should make you wonder; exactly how much is a good ruse worth these days?).

PERHAPS; THIS IS WHAT NOT TO DO:
The only way NASA could think of to get rid of my calling upon them, was to direct my efforts into what turned out as being "their" privet cult of damage control moles at "uplink.space.com". Of course at first, I was naive about being directed by NASA, as I thought this was a valid solution as to getting some results (WRONG!, DEAD WRONG!).

My opponents are for the most part NASA moles because, besides their only taking NASA's side, they simply have no real names, their email either is false or they provide nothing at all and, seldom an address or phone number (in fact, not one of these critics seem to live anywhere in reality). I have devised a sure-fire scheme that works every time, as to determining if I'm up against a mole or not. If you would like to know about this method, just ask, as unlike NASA, I have nothing to hide and, I'm willing to share whatever resources and knowledge. My research supports no such "non-disclosure" policy.

What I soon discovered (after wasting valuable time and resources) was that this cult at "uplink.space.com", like so many other supposedly independent web sites, was home to NASA's official and otherwise braille community of moles, and that their responsibility was more then obviously to hammer and/or bash at anyone or any issue that reflected poorly upon their pagan God. I recall asking legitimate questions and expecting to receive something helpful and/or leading towards answers (WRONG! again). All I ever received was a lot of truly bad language and otherwise mostly quotes from their pagan bible (NASA's documentation about Venus as well as those Apollo missions and other related issues) and, whatever else they could through at my discovery that could disqualify my findings as well as reflect poorly upon my abilities. It was at this juncture (because I was obviously not going away) that one of those official NASA moles placed my URL and therefore myself into the "crank.com" listing. Initially this was the first time in months that I could enter a basic search for "guth venus" and a indirect link to my URL would materialize, so I did not mind being listed because, I knew, and that others would soon realize, how and by whom and for what reason my listing was placed. Being new at all this internet stuff and totally unprepared for editing and publishing in HTML code was at first another waste of time, as others could have officially jumped in and supported that phase of my research and received the credit for doing so, but instead, I've learned a few things since and, now I've come to realize and substantiate more about what exactly was at the core of others rejecting my discovery.

There is nothing subtle about what assisted history did to all of us, lately impacting once again with such revenge. Agencies along with their army's of braille supporters are what makes for a good ruse and then further reinforces essential layering. The essential cloak and dagger aspects of NSA/DoD would have been nearly pointless if it was not for the skill and determination of team NASA and, it appears that we as Americans are not finished with our provoking others. We have a long history of bullyism and a willingness to pay a hefty price as well as to inflect whatever it takes to overcome those choosing to oppose our will. However, the greater portion of this planet Earth is not receiving nor benefiting from our technology nor from our aggressive behavior and, our drain upon global resources as well as the talents of others is impressive to say the least.

As it turns out, those rejecting my discovery seem to be offering nothing whatsoever to do with scientific truths or possibilities (only pathetic negative considerations based upon Earth human existance), nor as with their having any evidence as to my digital enlargements as being faked or even distorted (as unlike those Apollo mission photos, the entire world has access to my original digital format).

It has become my personal experience with commercial 70mm photograph equipment and direct hands-on film and photo developing and enlargements, plus now becoming my ever advancing knowledge of digital photo-enlarging that was coming in real handy, as I was attempting my best to only expose others to the greater of possibilities (rather then the lessor) of what I believed "GUTH Venus" represents. Perhaps that's when my opposition spitefully started the ball rolling as another form of "damage control" as to the issue of my having to deliver "extraordinary" proof. So far, opposition by pro-NASA types has still not been able to counter my Venus discovery nor shake my knowledge of what I believe should have and could have been in those Apollo lunar images (what should not have been there as well). So, in fair exchange for their bashing away at my work on the Venus discoveries, I've merely reviewed a number of other Apollo issues, then I asked of those pro-NASA supporters, if they would put up their supposedly "extraordinary" proof or to shut up and start supporting my discovery (fat chance of that ever happening).

Before you pounce all over my discovery, just maybe you should consider the real question at hand; "did we or did we not" and, what other cloak and dagger issues are tied to the same?  Going by their pathetic responses and/or null responses, apparently we may not have actually landed and walked on the moon, as there has long been sufficient technology for analyzing those original photo negatives, so as to acquiring sufficient registration stars, as well as to Earth's SAR/imaging of the actual landing sites and/or by that of applying multiple looks and thus digital combined Hubble imaging (boosting effective resolution by a factor of 10 and then photo resampling enlargement for another factor of 10, that's pushing their lame disinformation of 80 meters resolution down to 0.8 meters, that's without even utilizing the NSA/DoD resolution), so that everyone has what's been missing all along, namely "extraordinary lunar mission proof".

With some effort, I've managed to locate an official Apollo image, taken by one of those official cameras, that of an image of the command module in space (not necessarily anywhere near the moon) showing the bright metal craft obviously illuminated by the sun and also showing a substantial number of stars. I've also located a time exposure supposedly taken on the lunar surface where there are yet no stars whatsoever. So, what the hell gives? How can the very same equipment and film record stars in space but on the lunar surface and especially from that of a time exposure? The understanding here is not anything about wanting to see pretty stars, but is about those qualified being allowed to accurately determine the location from which the photograph was taken (why is NASA so afraid of that effort being achieved? and, what could they possibly have to loose? [think about it; perhaps everything]).

I've also discovered more about space radiation exposures, not only as applied to film but as to human limits. The Apollo-16 mission was likely a multi-rad (0.1+Sv) exposure, yet the film was not impacted and not even one hair fell out of those astronauts. Apparently NASA was so totally unconcerned about such radiation and, so much so that they never bothered to record a damn thing (not even one millirad from any method of recording), apparently not even as could have been easily taken from one of those 0.1 oz. film badges, which apparently never went aloft (not that this was all that necessary because, of the thousands of frames of official 70mm and some 35mm film had to have been equally exposed, yet there is no sign of multi-rad exposure damage and also, there was no indication whatsoever of the severe thermal cycling, such as being exposed to that +/- 250º lunar environment, where most tightly rolled film would have either somewhat melted from the heat an/or broke from the cold).

Without proper access to exploring those original Apollo negatives, NASA has no such extraordinary proof, yet their staunch supporters insist that I must produce such extraordinary proof seems a little odd, especially when my observational evidence is that of SAR digital format which far surpasses the "extraordinary" proof standards of anything photographic and besides, everyone has access to my original source. So what are they really griping about?

In my efforts to return the bashing favor (I must assume this is what they wanted), I respectfully requested equally extraordinary proof from my critics and, lo and behold, besides their not ever coming up with supportive observational images of highly complex lava flows and erosions that look the least bit artificial in any respect, I've gone on to recently discover that Earth based radio/radar telescopes (sort of like a larger version of the Magellan SAR technology) have, for the past 10 years or more, had the capability of achieving tight lunar resolutions of (depending somewhat upon the digital photographic enlargement) 1.5 meters or better. Remember; digital SAR format along with digital resampling is pretty much akin to what an electron microscope is to the optical alternatives (basically that's a "no contest" by a factor of at least 100 times), where an image of any planet or moon (especially that of detecting metallic objects such as those lunar lander remains) via radar/radio telescope without even introducing further digital enlargements can outperform the best Earth based optics by at least 10 fold (if the latest KECK-II can claim mastering 4 raw meters, that's 0.4 meters for modern SAR). Another issue happens to deal with the Hubble resolution based upon the 288 (82944) pixel CCD sensor, verses the NSA 1024 (1048576) pixel sensor, where obviously the 1024 capability offers 12.64 times better resolution. The efforts by NASA moles to discourage others from thinking we could apply the Hubble so as to verify Apollo landing sites was at first fraudulently based upon the moon being too bright for Hubble's sensitive instruments, well that lie soon didn't fly, as the direct solar illuminated moon was never a truthful consideration and thus, their moles were obviously caught red handed again. Then their inability as to obtaining suffice images was to be based upon their continuing disinformation that specified the single exposure resolution to something like 80 meters. Well, divide that by 12.64 equals 6.33 meters and, that's without certified digital enlargements and also without the obvious benefits of digital overlaying or combining of multiple exposures (the combination of which could easily yield better then 0.5 meters resolution) and, otherwise because of the good lunar surface illumination, the time required for such exposures is minimal, as little as 1% as compared to anything else Hubble looks at (so Hubble time investment would have been minimal). By the way folks; the lunar surface as illuminated purely by Earth is like 16 times better off then moon light here on Earth, thus more then ample for Hubble, especially as of today, with even better resolution and depth of contrast and/or illumination at hand.

It seems every new disclosure about those Apollo missions is coming up way short of the very same "extraordinary" proof standards. The latest round of costly analysis and determination as to those lunar samples has caused NASA to retract their previous statements and to issue the correction that the moon was somehow derived purely from Earth and, not as anything captured as all pre-existing evidence and reasonable science conclusions had determined, and most likely still support. That's supposedly why those multi-billion dollar samples have continually failed to show anything other then what minerals are available here on Earth.

Another issue deals with those multi-hundred-million-dollar lunar-lander test flights, as based upon the 1/6th weight (lunar gravity equivalent) scaled versions. My direct knowledge knows only of it being highly unstable, always crashing and exploding, otherwise I can't seem to locate one supportive document or foot of movie film demonstrating it was capable of being controlled by human interface. I also can not locate documentation as to our having "modulated thrusters" and otherwise only scant information as to the main thrust propulsion analog interface. Late 60's fly-by-wire seems not to have existed and, there was no main airframe mass stabilisation gyro. The center of gravity was basically all over the place, depending on fuel consumption (which was a lot) as well as attitude of being vertical as opposed to tilting. Operating the test lander in an atmosphere should have been advantageous as for reasons of damping and buffering as compared to having no atmosphere (sort of like operating various propulsion in water is vastly more predictable, stable and controllable). The atmosphere issue as far as anything having to do with re-entry was a non-issue as far as the manned test flights were concerned, as these were purely for obvious technology testing, evaluations, whatever refinements as well as real-time hands-on pilot training that was at issue and not anything dealing with re-entry aspects, yet not one such successful test flight documentation seems to exist (without having to disclose NSA/DoD secrets, exactly how did we accomplish that lunar-lander capability and, where exactly is the documentation film footage supporting such "extraordinary" proof?).

I think I now understand what happened; Apparently all that documentation must have disappeared when their foremost NASA safety engineer and his entire family were obliterated by that phantom train (all of those films were apparently in his trunk) and, that was some fantastic train that came out of nowhere and, of course such a highly trained safety engineer would not have known about such things as avoiding trains and, this one was really big and fast because, it not only destroyed all of his personal job related documentation, it also somehow destroyed that man's entire office and every potentially damning document (I guess it was also just a coincidence that the Senate appropriations hearings were to commence regarding continued NASA funding and, those hearings were to be based heavily upon this safety engineer's reports).

Why are so many official historical and space technical publications diminishing and/or pulling their references to those Apollo missions?

What do publishers and others truly suspect, now realize or outright know about the early years of NASA?

When publishers speak of retaliation by NASA; how much is at risk for simply telling the "truth" and, for simply asking in return for a little of that same "extraordinary" proof?

Is all of this sufficient cause for others and myself to believe there has been sufficient motives as to circumvent the "truth" and, is this also providing sufficient demonstration as to cause those in powerful NASA and political positions to fear what my discovery has to offer (because I've learned more and figured out other aspects of motives stopping this Venus discovery) and, is all this perhaps yet another example of NASA overlooking and/or downright ignoring my discovery in spite of their sworn obligations, in lieu of sustaining the ultimate ruse as well as pressing forward with continued NSA/DoD agendas?

I've stated most all of this before; I'm no astronomer and, I'm not any pretentious "ologist" (exploring high resolution SAR images seems to exclude my having to be the original astronomer), however, I have hands-on photographic as well as airborne imaging experience and, I still have my sight as well as a little common sense about myself. So, if you have any astronomy corrections or additions which you think relevant, please send whatever and, I'll see to it that you get the credit. Any context corrections and/or variations are also welcome, even critical reviews as long as you can at least present your foundation as to whatever your observational proof is. I mean, you obviously have to base your vastly superior visual/observational opinions upon something, as there simply has to be examples of such highly complex formations that are clearly natural. So, let us all see what exactly supports your point of view and, I promise not to bash your approach or opinion.

Keeping in mind, that I've looked fairly hard at hundreds of other planetary images (including Mars), exploring essentially well over a thousand sites (including those of Earth) plus, others (my forever critics) have had a year to do so, yet not one such observational image has anything remotely as compelling as "GUTH Venus".

How pathetic can such communities of space research and exploration be, and why I ask are we even paying them and/or funding their projects, if they are not working towards worthy as well as obtainable goals, then at what cost and/or for whom are they working?


The INDEX page: GUTH Venus

Copyright © 2000/2002 - Brad E. Guth
GUTH Venus: All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: Brad Guth - Brad Guth / IEIS   ~  1-253-8576061
created: July 25, 2002

Brad Guth / IEIS IEIS-Brad@Juno.com