The idea has been all along to motivate others interested into trying a few things out, like outfitting KECK-II with a dozen 10+KW xenon lamps, thereby producing something that's starting us off at 10 meters worth of super bright xenon illumination, like several hundred billion cd (perhaps even obtaining as much as 500 billion) candlepower as focused at Venus. Pulse over-driving those xenon lamps by a factor of 5 times their normal CW mode, as pulsed packet mode as being limited to a binary or morse code sequence of 3 minutes out of every 15, this would place the duty cycle somewhere near 10%. Obviously all this is not worth the effort when we already have ample laser cannons (some already deployed) and fully capable of easily outperforming anything xenon generated and, there is even a new 5 watt laser that's offering supposedly a raw 0.0004º divergence, that's by itself worth 20^9 cd, where an array of 5 such lasers would offer a delivery of 100^9 cd, that's even if there were no further optics involved and, at least 400^9 cd with good optics, perhaps 500^9 in pulsed/packet mode.
However, even without such laser technology, I know we can at least accomplish this xenon thing with existing commercial equipment at perhaps 1% the cost of anything laser, as well as consuming a fraction of the power (watt per watt, a mere 25% and, per hour at perhaps a mere 10% of the overall laser operating cost), I'm not even including the 99% worth of lesser investment advantage as representing a real finance cost savings, where obviously financing is something NASA types don't much worry about because, they always seem to have their Bank of NSA/DoD dollars, in other words a virtual currency printing press and, I'm not all that certain that only American currency is what's being printed. A xenon beam of one degree might initially have to do but, 0.1º would certainly become more then sufficient. However, a sufficiently large array (especially if contributed by 4 sites), each situated at least 2 hours apart could affect a 0.1º that would create a considerably smaller target diameter that's still somewhat larger then the planet Venus, thus a whole lot more effective and still a whole lot less tracking critical then anything laser, as lasers with good optics having a beam capable of 0.0001º would require all that much or better tracking.
I have recently been informed by Alex, seemingly an informed astronomy type, stipulating that I could be somewhat inaccurate about our utilization of Hubble as well as EL1/SOHO for monitoring upon Venus and, I'll suppose that goes for TRACE as well.
According to Wizard Alex, Venus is simply going to be too damn close to the sun (that was speaking of the last time when it was 6 degrees south as being too close) as for Hubble and, simply too insignificant as for SOHO or apparently even the likes of TRACE being disqualified. Thereby, I'm to guess that 7 trillion dollars and still counting for Hubble and perhaps countless hundreds of billions for SOHO are to be absolutely useless; "SOHO is _NOT_AT_ALL_ equipped to observe Venus". Too bad he doesn't know about those bloody fools of the BAA that take those nice images of Venus and even Mercury all the time, whereas I believe their combined equipment cost nearly 0.0001% that of Hubble, and of not one astronaut has been roasted to death.
It seems that I can recall seeing some fairly good images of Mercury's dark side as it slowly passed over the sun. Now a little more about Mercury; this pathetic little planet is somewhat smaller than Venus and at quite some added distance, so I'll suppose, the comparable greater size of Venus being that it's so damn big and furthermore being so much closer to the telescope but slowly drifting by just beyond the photosphere of sun is entirely logical to some as being invisible, that which apparently makes for imaging of Venus by SOHO entirely pointless. Alex also stated the SOHO had little magnification, and again I find that must be a little odd as well, or perhaps a fairly recent bad turn of events (an apparent serious optical degrade of sorts) because, you and I have seen those greatly magnified images of extremely small areas of the sun, that which seems to hold a fair degree of magnifying promise, and especially of those obtained by TRACE, not that all that much magnification is even necessary for the task of detecting what would be somewhat generalized as illumination spots from that nearly black disk area of Venus.
I'm saying nearly black because, Earth's potential illuminated diameter (obviously from the Venus perspective) is going to become nearly equal to our viewing upon 3.5% the diameter of our moon and, as according to NASA records, Earth supposedly reflects 50 times as much reflected photons as the moon illuminates upon Earth (lunar surface being nearly basalt/asphalt like) and as such our moon is delivering but 11% or essentially somewhat exactly like basalt or road asphalt, at least that's by everyone's account from KECK-II to Hubble (except of what's within those phony Apollo images, some of which had an astronaut added, plus a third photographic introduction of Earth). Now then, those Venus clouds are quite reflective, portions of which may obtain a reflective index of 80%. I've learned about those Venus clouds exhibiting a daytime 20:1 ratio of density and, I'm thinking that density ratio could even be exaggerated to 50:1 as during their extended 2900+hr worth of their global "cool-down" season of nighttime. Well folks, that's not only offering a far greater reflective capability but also a rather considerable contrast and/or opacity ratio potential, one which any half assed telescope outfitted with primitive filters and the sort of capable CCD sensors along with a shutter/aperture and/or solar shade could somehow manage if it had to, as for safely imaging upon that mostly dark disk area of Venus (admittedly having that relatively super bright crescent) as it previously passed nearby the sun is somewhat distracting. Fortunately, most CCD's (especially those developed for capable astronomy applications) offer an extremely high/tolerant contrast ratio, many times better then the human eye and, I do somehow believe team Hubble has a few other tricks up it's tube, like from the coded/encrypted NSA/DoD or NIMA.MIL resolution and thereby magnification potential as for nearly capable of reading news print down here on Earth.
What do I know about such astronomy equipment limitations? Certainly not all that much, much like when those wanting of Hubble to simply image upon the moon, presumably taking multiple digital images in sequence (thus effectively multiplying the usable pixel count by whatever factor is necessary) so that with proper registration and then PhotoShop enlarging we could acquire at least a 1 meter and more likely NIMA could resolve better. This is where those that supposedly "know all there is to know" stipulated that the moon was simply far too bright for the sensitive Hubble (I'm assuming that imaging task included the earthshine illuminated consideration as opposed to the fully solar illuminated). Well folks, we certainly learned of what subsequently resulted out of that "tit-for-tat", a whole lot of NASA horse pucky and, so much so that they still haven't managed to clear their stables of the resulting stench.
Avoiding a Venus style DEFCON-4 or worse, this could become somewhat of a real concern, thus limiting any laser/xenon emissions to something that's sufficient but not all that damaging to other life would be an important issue. The range of 0.271AU at best, is such that we can easily deliver a potential of exceeding 1 mw/m2 above Earth/background illumination, where any amount greater should be avoided unless other criteria prove worthy. 1 watt/m2 or as little as 125^3 candlepower per m2 could prove life threatening, especially to UV/IR sensitive nocturnal eyes.
An illumination source of 120 kw worth of xenon cannon array, as backed by a KECK-II class optical concentrator, could potentially produce an initial 10 meter shaft or beam at a minimum of 300 billion candlepower. Other applied wattage and/or optical technology could easily push this delivery to exceeding 500 billion candlepower (pulsed over-drive could deliver as much as 1000^9cd). Alternately, an array or multiple 100 billion candle power illuminations, if properly networked would also achieve this 500+ billion candlepower goal. Please review the laser-compage for further details.
I've been requested to remove a certain name from this and any other page, which I'm doing simply because of the request. I'm altering that name to Paul Smuck. However, it seems entirely odd that, since I was merely applying his more correct information and openly admitting that my math was incorrect, that somehow even this form of credit is not acceptable. Then I'm wondering what might be acceptable, since this individual is widely involved in just about everything "astronomy" and, under almost any topic you might care to discuss. He even says that he's always right (sort of like a lot of others you and I know), yet he seems unwilling to even stand behind his own statements whenever they might be actually applied towards anything relevant. I can't but wonder what his problem is, or what's he afraid of?
I fully realize that humans make mistakes (Boeing/TRW Phantom Works for example, and TWA flight-800 instead of the Tel Aviv flight, and of all those WMD are just pathetic), and that perhaps those smarter ones make even more then their fair share because, as they're actually trying to make a difference, while others not so smart are merely dumbfounded and/or snookered into believing in anything, and as such seldom if ever accomplishing much of anything beyond satisfying their personal desires and/or gratifications, such as NASA's continual gratification on behalf of NSA/DoD cloak and dagger cold-war agendas.
Some recent math corrections: understand that I'm still having a bit of difficulty with all the numbers, as I certainly realize others could be a whole lot better at this effort but, at least I'm trying, as other then Paul Sumck (as even he's all but negative about everything else, especially if it's not his idea), thereby my efforts are a whole lot more then most anyone else has contributed. Don Klipstein on the other hand, has recently offered some input and I hope others follow his positive lead, as any fool can remain spitefully negative, where being positive means that you could be exposing yourself as to making a mistake or two (so what?), as then others can pitch in with their contributions knowing that such individuals as myself are going to be appreciative and interested in seeing that mistakes are caught plus whatever credits are being given for those affecting headway, which by the way folks, even this has nothing whatsoever to do with being absolutely right all the time (the Pope isn't even right every time, obviously our crack NSA/DoD wizards aren't right most of the time and, NASA as been known to make a few mistakes, several involving human life and, I even know for a fact that Paul Smuck has made a mistake or two).
If we're all just sitting around waiting for only the most absolute right answers, nothing much of any relevance is ever going to happen. That's because we're obviously all dead by then.
Remember folks; Earth as appearing to Venus (especially from above those cool nighttime clouds), is damn near 3.5% the diameter of what you and I view our moon. Obviously that means even you and I from the hot and nasty perspective of Venus, though obviously having to be cruising sufficiently above them cool nighttime clouds, could easily differentiate upon a good 1000 km worth of polar cap or land mass, from which even one source of 100^9cd illuminations (especially if that's including mostly near-UV and perhaps some IR) will certainly be detectable, especially as to that nocturnal IR~UV sensitive eye that has a minimum magnitude 5 advantage over anything human (and that's in spite of the blatant disinformation coming from pro-NASA types), even if the initial beam were offering a pathetic 1 degree divergence instead of any 0.5 milliradian or better beam as capable from a good laser and optics, as that much of an illuminated speck would be noticed.
My rough estimate or foundation of communicating (as recently corrected by wizard Paul Smuck); at the nearest distance of 0.271AU, the target diameter of illumination (if initially focused to 0.01º) would be roughly 14,500 km (accounting for a doubling of that intended focus due to having to exit Earth's atmosphere), an area of 165^12 m2, of which even a 30 billion candlepower source I now believe calculates out as 182 candlepower/km2 as based upon no losses. As I've been informed (as for being properly corrected by; Paul Smuck), one could expect at least 80% of any such illumination to be leaving Earth's atmosphere, then essentially little if any further degrading until reaching those Venus clouds (from a 30 billion candlepower source, that seems sufficiently bright 0.145 mcd/m2). Applying a 100^9 candlepower illumination would put that level to nearly 0.485 mcd/m2 (0.0005+ lux/m2) which I happen to believe can be seen by the naked reciprocal eye, as a fairly noticeable illumination shift or damn brighter spot (remember that from Venus, Earth is nearly 4% the size of our viewing the moon and, you don't even need optics for viewing something that's that big and colorful by the way, in your nighttime sky).
In order to sufficiently detect such a minute spot of pulsed or code/packet illumination, above the greater solar illuminated background/threshold of Earthshine, this must obviously be exceeded by any such beam of light, at least as viewed by the aid of a telescope or better yet "Venus KECK-III" as situated onboard their high flying observatory. Anyone having such expertise of further estimating the actual illumination as being received at Venus (spectrums including IR and UV) and more exactly how much initial illumination would be necessary (not to be including cloud penetrations), would get my attention right off the bat. Like other then what I've been informed of losing as much as 20%, understanding exactly how much focused illumination actually leaves Earth's atmosphere and at what dispersion or further beam degrading could be expected, then what might that perceived illumination differential or visual threshold be, between that of the solar illuminated Earth and from that of a 100 billion (or whatever it should take) candlepower delivered from a 10, 30 or whatever multi-meter source represent?
Near and fully UV spectrums will have some cloud penetration potential, perhaps even enough to be noticed by ground level observations. Remembering that a nocturnal species having a magnitude-5 @400~450 nm and at least a magnitude-10 @350~400 nm advantage over humans is going to be highly sensitive to any such illuminations that occur in an otherwise totally pitch black environment. So, perhaps not all that much illumination may actually need to be created, especially if their nighttime sky has those reported 25:1 density clouds and then somewhat lessor of them and at much lower elevations once into their 2900 hour season of nighttime.
Ideally, this effort will be requiring a global network of at least 12 transmitter sites, globally spaced, preferably each of those capable of delivering 100^9 candlepower, where at any time at least three of these stations can be sustaining a synchronized packet transmission sequence mode upon every 15 minutes. If three were the average (based upon the potential 4th and 5th sites being obstructed by terrain or overcast), this would represent an average of 300^9 candlepower, capable of spanning our 24 global hours worth of taking clear shots at Venus.Obviously the more global sites (like 24) and thereby the more on-line and obviously the more focused (like 0.1º) the better, then also a viable tracking stability of +/-0.01º might be just the ticket.
The transmission of a coded phrase, initially of sufficiently low baud rate (1 bps), I believe this would be perceived by all species of sight enabled life. The ability of even primitive intelligence as to mimic and/or contribute by offering a reciprocal phrase is not inconceivable, especially when considering the nature of their various structures which have been revealed and, their likely capability of having astronomical access via that massive airship or simply from on top any one of those 17+km mountains. That combined with their reply illuminations occurring from their dark (obviously non solar illuminated) side, this means that the degree of illumination from Venus need not be as capable and thereby not nearly the concentration as would be required as being transmitted from Earth.
The goal is that from our existing astronomy observing resources would detect as little as a 1 billion (1e9 cd) candela emission as originating from the nighttime portion (obviously of illuminating a flood of cloud-tops or as a beam derived from above cloud levels) or nighttime season of Venus, although a daylight addition of a sufficiently different spectrum than of the 500~550 nm peak of reflected solar illumination has certainly become another alternative. The technology as to creating such an artificial illumination is certainly not all that far beyond what others and I perceive as happening within their existing environment and technology of which I believe Venus has to offer, or at least had to offer as of 13+ years ago. Understanding that Venus has an abundance of CO2, plus entirely unlike Mars, loads of various energy potential for producing free electrons, seems likely that such resources could have been utilized for their reply transmission. A reverse sort of xenon or CO2 rocket blast as that of an illumination source directed at Earth could produce a perfectly valid from of communications packet and, if I can figure out how to achieve such illuminations, then certainly a smart ass lizard certainly should be capable of doing the same.
The fact that our astronomy has long been diverted onto the most distant objects and efforts at discovering what if anything of intelligence resides far outside of our solar system, this clearly represents that nearly all of our talents and resources (hundreds of billions worth) have been entirely focused in the wrong direction for at least the past few decades worth. As such, any efforts by Venus to arouse Earth have obviously been in vain if not intentionally so, as why would any sould from Venus ever wanted to contact the likes of Earth, as pathetically screwed up as Earth is, chances are that of contacting Earth would likely do far more harm than good.
As with Earth's explorations of other worlds; if and when we should come across an advanced civilization, one that was yet unaware of our existence and, if that civilization were perceived by our world as a reverse threat, by allowing a space travel capable planet to subsequently realize a virtual gold mine of Earth's DNA and of otherwise easily obtainable elements, we too would become hesitant of our prematurely announcing our existence (sort of not willing as to giving away our hiding place in those tall grasses of Africa, simply because there's a fairly large pride of hungry lions near by). In other words, we might see them but, we're hoping like hell that they don't see us, at least not until we've mastered a technology of defending ourselves.
Of my learning about and I believe subsequently discovering the practical existence of certain technological considerations, as those clearly existing on Venus, could represent just such a potential reverse threat. Such as their launching shuttle like spacecraft from their technology of being capable of doing so from an airship lifting thousands of tonnes above those nighttime clouds. A sufficiently tough civilization which has mastered the energy uses of CO2-->CO/O2, plus having the motivation of surviving in spite of their bad situation, are likely to ponder the benefits which could outweigh the perceived risk of striking out to a nearby planet such as Earth, especially upon the 18 month cycle when that distance becomes a mere 105 times that of our moon.
Even primitive CO/O2 rocket engines as offering an impulse potential of 280, especially when that raw fuel element is essentially unlimited as the ocean surrounding your airship need not even be carried onboard until the final exit from their mostly CO2 atmosphere (folks; we're talking of the nearly ideal initial elevated launch platform of 75+km and perhaps even as much as 100 km being within the laws of rigid airship physics), from which point the necessary energies as to escape Venus are no longer such a complex task. Depending upon planetary orbits and associated gravity issues, it's entirely possible that a 1450 hour space flight (that's but half of one Venus season of nighttime) is perhaps already a done deal.
Extrapolating a space craft as engineered and constructed from the expertise of a rigid airship capable technology, I believe this phase simply is not all that difficult, certainly worth the risk if your world seemed threatened by an impending Earth invasion and/or upon facing further environmental collapse, as in which case, what could they possibly have to lose. If nothing else, the mere opportunity of gaining further knowledge of Earth and hopefully exchanging technology could be all there is at this point, unless either of our world's decide upon taking an aggressive or domineering roll, in which case we've got ourselves some seriously big time "trouble in River City".
Well over two years ago, I may have badly presented all of this planetary communications concept onto NASA, NSA and the likes of NIMA.MIL. However, I also did so upon many attempts, where I was always requesting of others claiming as being vastly smarter then myself, as to pitch in. I even placed phone calls and, I was even remaininf very nice and entirely understanding of their reluctance, whereas obviously I've never given up due to all of their rejections but, I did eventually become depressed and then somewhat intellectually challenged as to returning the favor, as worse yet were becoming some of their replies that simply didn't make any sense, mostly from pro-NASA and always from those pro-Apollo or bust supporters, whereas they basically bashed the very concepts of other life and naturally rejected absolutely every aspect of the GUTH Venus discoveries (oddly with no exceptions whatsoever). Otherwise I'd received a good number of null responses, or by those totally supposedly unconcerned were intent upon providing their outright if not spiteful disinformation. From other supposedly independent opponents (again mostly official pro-NASA mole and/or dog-wagging borg types, such as nearly all those residing at NASA's "uplink.space.com") were involved in what I could only define as officially sanctioned "spin" and dog-wagging "damage control" (as they were still having to deal with all of that ongoing Apollo ruse and perhaps at keeping NASA out of the 9/11 event), which only caused myself to further research into the source of such arrogance and/or fears over what I had to offer. As how could this discovery of mine even become worth such efforts as to inflect such official moderation and/or subsequent punishment and disqualification as possible (I seriously wondered about all this flak; whom would ever bother as to do such a thing and why, unless there were considerable ulterior motives and thereby a great deal other at risk).
Unlike many of my official opponents (why there should even have been opponents alludes my honest reasoning). Because of this further effort, I now do in fact have strong opinions as to the why and/or how NASA and our nation have arrived at this truly dismal spot in history and, I do believe that such skewed history has been at the very root of a great deal of recent disinformation, and this remaining at the helm of our not so focused illusions of what the American ideal of humanity should and can be accomplishing. Instead, Earth (mostly America and/or of American interest) has long been playing Russian roulette, where as of lately we're loosing more often then not. Our resources and talents being at an all time low, while our needs (thus drain upon global resources per capita), are still at an all time high, and growing.
It seems worthy and timely for our nation to again lead this world into the future with a great deal of respect and focus, thus efficiently applying our remaining resources towards obtainable goals, of those most likely to involve mutual benefits (that's hopefully excluding anything NSA/DoD beneficial). This new effort may ultimately take further disclosures in order that we not further waste our talents or aggravations upon the past, nor basing our futures upon technologies that are skewed or that simply do not exist. It also seems wise to apply those resources into nonpolitical/nonreligious roles that achieve mutual humanitarian benefits (including those of other planets), hopefully without our aggravating the holy hell out of yet another world, especially of one which could be comprised of the sorts of Islamic or Muslim (hopefully Cathar) lizard folk, as I'd hate to think of what sorts of resolutions folks from the likes of Venus would have for our world.
Seems the last thing we need right about now are Venus lizard folks descending upon Earth, initially as having a grudge to settle with the Pope. Just perhaps, those folks from Venus (being so accustomed to life in a truly difficult environment) could seriously help straighten things out for Earth, as they certainly couldn't do humanity much worse off than 9/11 and the likes of our resident warlord.
To make our Earthly goodwill intentions known, in a manner that's not so threatening or material/resource aggressive, I believe this is where our laser/xenon packet calls come in, starting off at the low baud rate of perhaps 1-bps until a packet of quantum data can be exchanged. This communications effort seems doable and certainly a whole lot safer and vastly more cost efficient then actually going there, even via another satellite is not only spendy but extremely time consuming. Besides, I'll bet those xenon cannon or laser cannon manufacturers could use a good sales promotion like this.
This inter-planetary communications effort is a win-win situation; For the most part utilizing existing technologies and I believe most likely from existing stock of essentials, as to making this effort into a safe and sound reality. If NASA so much as states we'll be needing to engineer something from scratch, they're lying (again); perhaps somewhat like fibbing about the true Hubble resolution and even of Earth based VLA-SAR imaging of our moon (based upon fairly old NASA published documents; as of 1992, try SAR of better then 2 meters raw as of 2002, try 1 meter resolution as of today, then divide that by a factor of 10 through certified digital photo enlarging). Folks, there are more then just a few darn good reasons why our NASA does not want other Nations closely surveying that moon of ours, as even from our more recent instruments have been degraded far below what's possible, so that the final resolution is essentially piss-poor.
Your involvement (qualified or not) need only be supportive (being critical is even OK as long as you back your notions with whatever references), encouraging and thereby attracting of others having the right stuff as to making things happen, as this need not be an American effort, as other nations not nearly so capable of most other space related matters could easily contribute their skills and resources. Since little resource is actually needed, many nations and/or capable privet individuals, even those you and I might consider as impoverished, could actually obtain recognition and subsequently obtain the rewards for their xenon-cannon or laser cannon communications achievements. Certainly the likes of China, India, Cuba and Russia have their research capable laser cannons, even a few tactical 100 KW field lasers could be applied without much of any alterations. Tracking upon Venus (due to the tight laser beam) could impose the really big issue, as 0.001 degree or better target tracking is not exactly of what's required for such tactical field weapons.
All along, for the past 36 months and counting, I've tried to encourage others, as to becoming honestly involved. Most are seemingly smart but far more then afraid of what the "mainstream status quo" has to deliver in retaliation. For example; I personally uncovered that many of the publications capable of running articles have been openly stating their real concerns of being financially devastated (losing their accreditations and infomercial advertisement base which just so happens to include all those official NOVA/NASA type infomercials that have long been viewed by the public as honest science news) though entirely orchestrated by the powers that be. Greater NASA (including the thousands of institutions associated) clearly represents to most publications their largest direct and indirect client, thereby the likes of NASA has always been capable of applying the means of getting their way or else, by the notion of merely pulling their news and supposedly scientific editorial articles (infomercials). Most publications are not flush, they are generally over extended and simply can't afford to alienate their largest client and, that goes for all textbook publishers as well, so they'll essentially print whatever government wants and/or allows them to print, and without question and without independent research offering valid confirmations. Thus inherent and obviously thoroughly biased sorts of moderation occurs without any apparent strings to NASA. Basically, NASA gets whatever they want published, as in only there way or else, while all others simply have to "go fish".
The published word simply is NOT the truth and nothing but the truth, it's of whatever the person paying for those column inches and photo hype inserts wants to say or suggest, and that's a fact of life of how the likes of our GW Bush, the Pope, Henry Kissinger and Hitler functioned, and of how those types remain in authority in spite of the truth.
Because of such government sanctioned threats, a lot of good science is simply not being told. Not that good science need be entirely right on every issue (at least not right off the bat), in fact, having a good and honest understanding of the faults and mistakes of others seems as one of the best overall recourse towards our not having to waste one's valuable time and perceptions upon what doesn't work (of course you can't even do that much if you don't realize what others are working on, or of how snookered other and perhaps yourself have become), as for physics and science needs to be founded upon the errors and of avoiding the otherwise usual cover-up and/or orchestrated disinformation, as otherwise that form of ulterior motivated moderation certainly leads us only into the sorts of further and deeper mistakes that brought us the likes of 9/11, then eventually the entire downfall of public trust and support (sort of like the financial failings of those once perceived as respectable individuals and of our public institutions are now so thoroughly in the overflowing space toilet, even though government agencies [all sorts of them] were supposed to have prevented so much of that from ever happening in the first place).
Humans, including myself, make loads of mistakes (I seem to manage a few too many), in my case it's my dyslexic syntax, poor composition that's usually in reverse order, grammar and even math that needs a good deal of help; but none of my mistakes are intentional nor malicious, just a little exaggerated from time to time in order to make a point. Most often I even have to discover my own mistakes and/or accept the more correct information as provided by others, and unlike our NASA, I'll always give credit wherever credit is due. If on the other hand, if I were to impose a tax funded "nondisclosure" policy and furthermore invoke a master plan or ruse/sting capable of insuring that all of my insiders obey the club rules and guidelines (or else), further reinforcing my position by placing and funding all of those infomercials as legit news articles, so as to be appearing as honest research and of subsequent worthy results, and so that I also controlled whatever and of how things were published within textbooks, thereby insuring that I obtained the greater public support so that continued funding would have to take place, as then I too would become the culprit, causing my opponents to cringe and above all bite their lips over what I did and perhaps more so as to what my persona and hidden agenda was doing to accomplish in the future, of impacting otherwise honest and open minded research efforts, as obviously the truth could ever be published, and of what had been previously published as history couldn't be revised withoug giving cause for folks to start thinking outside the box.
Obviously that's not been the case with my ongoing research, as it's only my opposition that's trying their level best (at taxpayer's expense by the way) to destroy and/or distort the truth through a great deal of spin and damage control, and then to be indicating otherwise, like they've been on my side all along (that's flat out Bull Pucky!).
Truth has a way of becoming politically skewed as to suit the situation at hand, but then remembering that mistakes are also a very strong but indirect form of achieving truth. As long as the public (that's you and I) are given the opportunity as to realizing those mistakes, for what they were, and not for what someone else wishes them to be perceived as. Knowing what mistakes have been made, means others will not have to repeat those steps, nor subsequently have to apply "spin" and "damage control" in order to save face. Knowing exactly what a mistake was, obviously means knowing of what NOT to ever do again, like not pissing off the Taliban or of their al Qaida would obviously have been a good move, perhaps an even better move yet would have been for us to not only have allowed but assisted the USSR efforts in their quest at extinguishing those nasty Taliban folks in the first place (but then our government would have had to have admitted that our cold-war was entirely perpetrated as another pile of crap, an entire ruse in the first place, and naturally we certainly can't do that).
I would have to guess; if I were to have a functioning sort of time machine, I would not so much be kicking those Taliban butts as much as US/NSA/DoD butts (not that I'm excluding other Pope and/or Jewish like butts, as I just do not seem to have the necessary capacity as for listing every qualified butt that needs kicking).
As you will understand from my overly complex web pages, I've had some difficulty in delivering to and then accepting the wrath or flak of the mainstream status quo, often not having the best opportunity nor composition/syntax sort of polish as to directly returning the favor, especially as to my opposing what so many Americans perceive as an entirely justified sense of skewed history, then looking forward into a flawed future as based upon that skewed history seems somewhat like knowing about the future that beholds the notion of shooting off both my feet. For one thing, I see no fault nor long term downside to disclosing truth(s), especially of what happened 3+ decades ago, nor as to our attempting this "first contact". Even if there's no reply, there's a darn good chance that our messages will be received and hopefully determined as being friendly, thus setting the stage for our Venus L2 mission along with an even better Magellan-II and of those capable robotic surface lander deployments of the sorts of proven equipment offering visual and audio two-way communications with whatever constructed all that my research has uncovered and, I'm certain there is so much more.
Perhaps if Venus came to understand how pathetically screwed up and thoroughly infectious Earth has become, they will not be in all that much of a hurry as to come visiting, at least not until the two of us a little more ready for that to happen.
Certainly I believe there is far more to Venus then of what I've managed to uncover (mostly on a "need to know" basis, since not all that much help was being provided nor guided, nor has there been any amount of positive notions involved with others ever changing the prevailing notions per the Venus status quo of being purely hot and nasty), so there is still certainly ample room for others to join in and to realise the future of our two worlds, even if this means excluding our NSA/DoD, NASA and their terrific following of all those pro-NASA and thereby pro-Apollo types.
According to other ongoing research, of that predicting far greater changes enstore for our solar system, along with the lack of official concern over tracking any 10th or 12th planet or even of those 100+ meter (potential Earth killer) Kuiper space rocks, such as those frequently passing within 100,000 km from Earth, whereas before too long our two planets may soon need each other. As I'm thinking of anything capable of surviving the likes of Venus should be tough as nails about surviving nearly any disaster, perhaps even capable of their salvaging pathetic Earth humans, even though I see little motivation and certainly less value in their ever doing that (I mean; why would anyone want to travel to such an infected, wet and cold planet like Earth, just to salvage a few pathetic life forms that you couldn't possibly take home as any pet or even as livestock?). Earth humans taken back to Venus would be like a deep sea jellyfish out of water or, perhaps just the opposit in relation to what Venus has to offer, either way we're obviously quite dead and probably wouldn't taste all that great anyway, and even if they could somehow keep us alive, whom would ever want anything as DNA/RNA inferior, absolutely arrogant and dumb and dumber like us, I mean, how embarrassing.