This is a recent reply which I offered onto someone within NASA. Either this individual is willing to risk it all or perhaps it's just another scripted series of replies, as so far, my primary questions which had to do with fuel consumption of essentially a H2O2/C2H5OH or H2O2/Kerosene rocket powered turbine, one that could potentially be powering something like that massive (180 x 1620 meter) airship, have gone unanswered. Even though these energy questions have not been specifically answered, this nice individual was willing to share some semi-insider information, such as links to various technical reports and files, even though much of his reply submitted links that indicated only towards the status quo, in other words, to be only reaffirming that the planet is so damn hot and nasty, but none the less and, all of that's OK, as long as something at least relevant to what I'm trying my best to understand is being offered and, doing so without all the previous idea and discovery bashing as being represented previously by those NASA moles entrenched at "space.com".
For some reasons, I feel I have not been making myself sufficiently clear;
Unlike many others, I'm not trying to become the "know everything" expert as to every aspect of what could be representing itself at "GUTH Venus". I am providing a large pot full of ideas, asking a few too many questions and prompting others to join in, especially if they have "the right stuff" so as to best determine the realities, if not simply exploit upon the possibilities of what I've pointed out or, at the very least, raised as valid considerations as well as potential opportunities if not simply as damn good questions.
Thanks for the latest round(s) of research leads. With such new information, I'll further review the occurances of such "common" natural attributes as previously stipulated by NASA, as those supposedly of equal if not representing better examples of purely natural yet complex occurances, that to some may appear as artificial.
This next part is for the benefit of those not so willing to submit to what this discovery has to offer.
So far, as best as others and I can determine, the bulk of worthy artificial looking considerations within the "GUTH Venus" discovery area are clearly not those representative of craters and/or anything resulting from otherwise ever recorded tectonics or lava flows.
I understand and, I can fully appreciate what various craters look like, some elongated and those of nearly straight-on impacts. I also recognize the purely natural nature of a major channel as well as several secondary lessor channels and/or resulting erosions as being sourced from the primary channel. I also view the surrounding tectonics of various rock formations as well as those mountains as equally of valid natural formation.
Understanding what looks as and what is most likely that of such natural formations, especially within the rugged and elevated terrain surroundings of "GUTH Venus", makes for the highly unlikely yet obvious existence of those not so natural looking elements to really stand out, especially more so when everything was captured via SAR imaging. Such as, if I were to be referring to that unqualified suspension bridge and, if this were to be anything caused by lava, this item alone should become the most outrageous and absolutely most spectacular event in our known data base of planetary features (including Earth). I mean, any lava flow that would not only have gone out of it's way in order to circumvent a significant mountain range (instead of simply flowing downward into that massive channel or canyon through any number of many other steep ravine considerations) and, furthermore tunneled itself through a solid rock mass, only then to horizontally launch itself across a massively wide (1/2+ mile) "Grand Canyon", this feature alone should be worth the trip back to Venus.
The massive clover shaped collection of those four (above surface) reservoirs, furthermore connected from their center to the edge of another distant (more elevated) and somewhat larger reservoir, if these were again of natural considerations (as representing an order of 50 million m3), this also would represent a truly spectacular and entirely worthy discovery, far exceeding anything recorded elsewhere (again including Earth). The "fact" that the upper reservoir is clearly containing something fluid, sufficiently so as to absorb the SAR imaging signal (minimum of 4 + looks per pixel) is yet offering another example, worthy of our returning to further explore just this feature alone. I've roughly calculated 50 million cubic meters could be contained within these five considerations, especially if including that aqueduct looking affair connecting these widely separated reservoir considerations.
As compared to that pathetic "Mars face", if I am to be limited to using pixel count as any relationship as to comparing such, as any potential towards artificial content, "GUTH Venus" holds in excess of 100 times more viable pixels plus, all those pixels were acquired at the excellent perspective of 43º via SAR (multi-look) imaging. In addition to the "Mars face" which offered nothing whatsoever of any lattice or that of rational infrastructure, such as sizable roadbeds, associated structures, multiple parabolic considerations, a raised and very long flat platform/tarmac area (better yet as situated within a rugged mountainous area) along with indications of equipment situated on that tarmac, nor of various other large shelters (including one as being sufficient as to accommodate that massive airship), then there are multiple globe/sphere shaped items of sufficient size and being neatly so arranged into parallel rows (possibly as airship fuel storage), all sorts of tunnel issues with connecting passage/roadway considerations, other multiple circular (clearly above ground) fluid storage considerations, multiple other structural items comprised of strikingly geometrical vertical and symmetrical features including rectangular along with rounded features and, don't forget about that massive "fluid arch" consideration. Again, this arch feature alone is something not ever recorded, so it's existence (especially if to be considering it's existence on Venus) is highly spectacular and thereby worthy as being further analyzed. All of this multitude of worthy content is situated amid otherwise typically natural Venus elevated terrain, that of extremely rugged techtonics, presumably mostly rock and massive channel erosion features, clearly exposing the artificial considerations for exactly what they are, as opposed to the obvious artificial contents.
Topping all of this off, all of this SAR imaging is about as "extraordinary" as imaging proof ever gets. As CCD and conventional film offers none of the qualifications of which the Magellan mission clearly had to offer. Why this fact is even being disputed is somewhat amazing by itself. I mean, how pathetic are my critics, or what. Exactly how much solid image evidence is necessary, as to be supporting this discovery; this is truly becoming amazing by itself.
Next; exactly how much artificial worthy content (in terms of raw pixel count) is it going to take to override the consequences of NASA's failures. No one is perfect (not myself and certainly least of all government), as reading through my research should be making that point extremely clear, so, how about a little discovery support rather then pressing onward without banishing our mutual destinies. How about this, I'll stop bashing if you will.
I read again about how strapped for funding NASA has become and, how they need to concentrate upon supporting their allegiance to NSA/DoD agendas and yet, I keep hearing about the quest for those damn Mars microbes and, of our willingness as to pursuing vastly distant explorations, all of which indicates zip nothing worth of worthy artificial content to even suggest that significant life ever existed elsewhere (at least not that us humans will ever reach). All this time, the planet Venus (especially every 18 months), has been essentially right next door and, offering at the very least, the most likely pre-greenhouse existence of those which obviously evolved on Venus and, I'm not all the certain that planetary as well as life evolution somehow hasn't managed to adjust their DNA into something tolerant of the present day situation. Perhaps the way we have been neglecting Earth's environment, we could learn a thing or two from those on Venus, as from those that have long since "been there and done that" especially with any regard to co2 management.
As I see things, something or someone, in a very big way, manipulated the surroundings at "GUTH Venus" as well as established their #2 and #3 sites so as to best survive on a hot planet. Therefore, a little positive support is not going to hurt nor is it saying that you or anyone else is thoroughly convinced I'm right. A positive approach to this opportunity will simply further define what's there to be seen and then hopefully help to maintain our global expertise focus, hopefully above that of what everyone opposed has to offer. These days, space related competition, especially for anything worthy of commercial enterprise potential, is going to become where it's at (taxpayers are simply becoming tapped out and, I'm not all that pleased with what NSA/DoD have accomplished so far).
A little positive support will obviously go a very long way as to focus what limited resources we have, into something offering the most "bang for our buck". Hopefully those interested will take a gander at some of my ideas, overlooking the grammar syntax and spelling as well as my fairly poor humor. Of course NASA could get involved at any time, taking firm control of my thoroughly untrained approach to all this and, then simply run with it. Maybe, even the October 2002 event is not all that hopeless. After all, between the US and Russia, we do have some fairly impressive laser technology, some of which is just sitting around, perhaps waiting for a good cause and/or, how about a thorough duty cycle testing program that just happens to be pointed at Venus.
Continued ruse deployments and subsequent layering support has already drained our past resources, skewed and sidetracked valid research, thoroughly de-focused our remaining resources, wasted talents, obviously pissed off a few too many and above all else, wasted precious time.
Perhaps with your abilities and of those of which comprise the upper class expertise within NASA, as a renewed National space effort, we should be capable of absorbing a little impact from exposing the "truth(s)", which obviously would have been a whole lot better then the 9/11 situation. Why our past has to keep getting in the way and involved is simply because of the associated drain upon our limited resources. Basically we need to cut our losses and refocus what's left and, preferably upon truly obtainable goals, especially those holding the greater humanitarian as well as science aspects as reward.
My job as an observational explorer, as to be discovering at least three worthy sites on Venus, is essentially over, unless I have to keep selling this discovery and overstating it's potential, in which case, I'm willing to press onward until something positive occurs, preferably well before October 2002.
Sincerely, Brad Guth / IEIS 1-253-8576061
http://geocities.com/bradguth and http://guthvenus.tripod.com
There have been times when I think everything to going to work out, but then I wake up.
With all the artificial content available, at least that which NIMA and myself can identify, why there is even the slightest hesitation towards re-exploring Venus has become a true mystery and perhaps the real story. Why all the resentment towards my discovering anything and worst yet, my having to further define the most probable logic, as into so much of what I feel is simply so damn artificial and therefore real, is no longer any mystery as far as I'm concerned, as those employed and officially charged with such responsibility of supposedly making the most out of our tax dollar funded missions, they should be ashamed if not downright embarrassed.
What exactly are these so called NASA experts actually looking for and/or looking at, as I keep hacking away at this, at times I'm at a total loss for words and, considering the magnitude of what I have been able to discover, I would have to consider such slack performance as serious "pink-slip" worthy candidates, especially if there ever were a need to further trim the budget. The fact also that agency rivalry is so intense, so much so that when NASA lost another of their Mars missions, then our very own crack NIMA (NSA/DoD's spy imaging support) agency eventually located it or at least the remains, NASA summarily refused to submit to being out done. What are these agencies actually doing and, how exactly do they differ from acting like spoiled to the core children at that. How long has it been since they even reviewed their "oath's" and "job descriptions".
Now, I certainly know NIMA has the best digital resampling and thereby enlargement photo software. Even from what I've trial tested, 20X magnification is something well within the realm of capabilities and, with that sort of performance, NIMA should be damn near capable of reading the serial number off those lunar lander remains. Perhaps that is what's keeping these two agencies appart, NIMA can see (perhaps not see is being more to the point) what NASA wants to remain hidden, that is of course, if there is anything at all to be seen and, obviously that could be representing the real problem.Copyright © 2000/2002 - Brad E. Guth