Confusion about mission cost may be something entirely normal

(some folks are never confused, they believe anything their government GAO dictates)
By; Brad Guth / IEIS    updated: May 15, 2003

Unlike yourself, I'm obviously a very confused sort of person, especially after re-posting some of my continuing and ever expanding ideas as for our next round of affordably safe Venus explorations, where hopefully that's prior to ESA's Venus Express but, don't hold your breath. The key word being "affordably" is apparently another one of those official NASA "no no" words, likewise as for using any phrase containing words like "morality" or even the dreaded "humanity" word within any context upon justifying absolutely anything involving NASA/NSA/DoD/CIA funding, as such phrases containing such bad words represent absolute unforgivable mistakes, that's almost as bad as becoming another prematurely dead NASA whistle blower or perhaps worse yet, a Cathar.

From time to time, I've had to add or imply a little tit for tat regarding those nifty NOVA productions, where below on this page you'll see a little more of why I'm so easily confused. Besides the INDEX page, you may want visit the least complex description page on screen for much of the following. Since I've recently received some perfectly good flak over NASA's spending and spending until those Apollo cows come home, when we all should know that those cows were sent out and then eaten decades ago by these Apollo support groups involved with loads of "spin" and "damage control", so guess what folks; those damn cows are never coming home. So, I've got a word or two of my own about cost+ spending, morals and of skewed science and of toilet physics.

Foremost, I'm definitely confused about modern (post Apollo) science and physics, where just because of whatever disinformation is linked to those Apollo mission, that simply doesn't mean that absolutely every other independent sole or Borg must be limited nor restrained to only those skewed truths, as there are perfectly good examples (having no ulterior motives as to being otherwise) that seem to exist as for operating within the recorded laws of science and physics that support other life, all of which is only confusing if you're one of those still trying to avoid conflicts with that of our NASA published Apollo documentation, where if you simply discard such rubbish, then all the sudden a good number of things (especially of politically and morally related issues) start to make sense again. If that's not sufficiently confusing, then I don't know what is.

The remainder of this page may become a wee bit off topic, not to mention too damn wordy for just Venus but, if our NASA/GAO can somehow justify and stipulate that their published cost of mission operations is merely their proposed ongoing daily expenditures of any current mission, by their not having to include what's already been invested and in need of continual sustenance/support nor of what's remaining to be invested, nor of what the overall long term mission impact is going to truly require, then that's certainly a great thing to know.

On behalf of the NASA/Andersen tradition of mission cost/funding downsizing;  I believe my Lambergini gets 10 miles per gallon and, even at the $2/gallon, that nifty car is only costing me 20 cents per mile (obviously I can afford that, even as many Lambergini my 12 car garage can hold) because, since I can only drive one at a time, and where that cost is only 20 cents per mile, what do I possibly have to lose, especially if the taxpayers paid for not only the Lambergini but also that 12 car garage and of the Lambergini fleet within, as well as the ground on which everything stands, plus all of the maintenance, the utilities, along with all of my personal staffing including security plus various alternate transports of my selection at my disposal and, above all else is 100% (full replacement value) insurance coverage for absolutely everything and everyone. In addition to all that, if I should need one of my Lambergini's to be relocated in Spain or even Australia, my crack logistics teams would make that happen overnight and best of all, still that's not any part of my personal Lambergini mission overhead, it's just pure coincidence that my Lambergini could hitch a ride that was already going to exactly where I wanted to go.

I'm only mentioning cost as in relationship to what my confusion believes a little or even a lot of interplanetary communications potentially could cost, as in relationship to that of our having to deploy even a relatively cheap Earth communications satellite and, that's not to mention any half billion dollar launch investment should that satellite involve the shuttle or of the on-again off-again performance and/or reliability issues of various other alternatives. How about our investing 1% that of any Mars microbe gathering ($250 billion) mission and, even that's including a substantial VL2 communications platform or, how about at most 0.01% of those lethal Mars microbes without any stinking VL2 platform and without the slightest possibility of any biological infections nor another astronaut risk fiasco. Hell's bell's, with 10% of that Mars microbe disaster just waiting to happen, we could relocate ISS to VL2, as fully manned along with a good number of paying guest (I vote for placing Martha Stewart onboard as seated right next to Bill Gates, then ENRON/Andersen types and even the Pope, plus a few warlords (including Bush), furthermore offering 24/7 televising of everything as "REAL SURVIVOR TV"). For a little good balance, just for humor I'd leave room for accommodating Cathars but, it seems their chances of returning alive as long as the Pope's onboard are slim to none,

If this were another NASA thing, it seems as though, as for myself to accomplish anything top secret, that's obviously going to take great sums of money, just as in the tradition of NASA taking investments far in excess of whatever the actual mission could possibly involve. Even without the help of Arthur Andersen cooking the books, seems I'll need to include whatever it is that's required, such as the use of various land and of acquiring lots of other land, then having everything custom engineered, over-designed to death for that of creating all my structures and associated infrastructure (all toll upon several campusses and amounting to hundreds if not thousands of various structures), then as to outfitting their interiors and continually upgrading, paying for all of those multi million dollar monthly utilities, accommodating the rather enormous staff as to keeping everything spiffy, along with the staff that's encharge of my PR, then affording the staff that's encharge of my subcontractors (perhaps thousands of those), of course fully compensating my own highest paid staff that's actually involved with whatever my operation is about and, not least of all is that I've got perhaps hundreds of simultaneous operations ongoing at any one time. Of course, some of these tens of thousands of comrades need their motor pools, their privet air fleets and absolutely everything needing multiple levels of security teams and the overall security force that's licensed to kill (shoot first and ask questions later).

Of course, all this overhead must include vast numbers of highly qualified researchers and of those accomplishing various documentation must be under constant guard, where new and ever bigger warehouses and massive vaults are to be required, of those being staffed with equally highly qualified soles as well as fully guarded and, don't forget about this having ample insurance for all of this show, as how could ten's of thousands of such highly paid and benefitted positions possibly function without insurance upon absolutely everything.

Then there's always the ongoing training as for those G-whatever ratings and of eventual full retirement with equally full benefits. I believe this program must somehow include full medical as having to be paying for every sole as well as their entire families and, perhaps that retirement/medical portion alone is only worth 480 million per year per every 10 thousand (representing the least of my expenditures).

Of course there are those inevitable accidents and too often there are a number of dead folks from those supposedly unavoidable accidents and, if all goes well there's even the actual mission(s) that take place. Then we have the ongoing plus months (decades in the Apollo case) of after mission efforts (mostly intended as for milking out more funding for the next round of whatever missions) where the staff and those involved with the actual mission must remain fully employed long after the fact (it might look bad if NASA fired everyone the instant our crews safely returned or whatever mission was competed, so they're retained and/or transferred into another of our NASA's black holes). All of this collateral financial impact which demands enormous financial infusions is why I've multiplied the publicised mission cost by a factor of ten, as I believe that's being conservative.

Since my math is often in error and, I haven't received my government's approved degree in accounting methods as from Arthur Andersen, as such I'll let you do the math. BTW; you'll need a really big ass spread sheet and lots of zeroes and, be forewarned that this accounting may overload and could damage your CPU.

For some raw examples of what you or I might require; a typical metro buss service has an investment of 1.5 to 2 million per employee. A metro commuter rapid rail transit service involves more like 100 million invested per employee and, I don't believe any of this is top secret nor involved in cutting edge technology, nor are there any cold-war cloak and dagger issues involved. So, how many hundreds of millions are there invested per every employee of our greater NASA enterprise?. Of those existing investments; how much is that worth in interest and other maintenance? In other honest words, how much is it actually costing us per day, per year, per decade???. As only then you may add in the actual impact of those missions (good and bad ones). For some unexplained (confusing) reasons, the launch and/or deployments of all the failed missions seems to cost a mere fraction of those that didn't fail (in other words the loss is apparently no big deal).

I'm not absolutely certain but, it seems that the cost of our NASA has become a wee bit more than of the fuel in their Lambergini tanks. Just going by those NOVA and National Geographic info-commercials, as such capable "knock your socks off" productions go, and of the rather substantial cost of utilizing national (prime time) broadcasting, are worth millions per month. Relentless publication articles (delivering more info-commercials along with legitimate articles and presumably truthful commercials as actual commercial advertisements) are simply another interesting black hole of NASA's GAO/AA accounting. Certainly there's nothing here that our crack GAO/Arthur Andersen wizard accountants can't manage to shuffle about.

Now I'm really getting confused, as I thought after 9/11 America was nearly broke

All the sudden we not only have funds still slated for Mars and of dry-ice Pluto but, we seem to have sufficient talents and all the multi billion dollar infrastructure to be utilized for continuing research upon 50+ million lightyear distent star evolutions, meanwhile we don't have the slightest handle upon Earth's evolution, let alone of it's warlords (past and present day).

Recently there's been another one of those "knock your socks off" spendy NOVA productions, this time an update having to do about super nova events and of our ever expanding universe. Here I thought I was confused about anything being much further away than our solar system, let alone a few lightyears such as Sirius and of it's white dwarf that have also long been estimated as for their moving away from Earth. Since I'm not another astronomy wizard nor even a god, I'm not at all certain but, I believe I heard from others that qualify themselves above all living organisms as stipulating that a spent super nova becomes a white dwarf or perhaps that's vise versa and, if my recollection is still within a medicated state of reality, it seems that a few thousand years ago there was in affect a second sun that was actually brighter than our current sun and, it more than just lit up the night, as in brighter than daytime (I also understand that sort of thing represents a great deal of solar flare radiation potential, as in exceeding 1 rad per day). It also seems there was once upon a time a fairly well documented global flood which could very easily have been attributed from polar meltings and subsequently a rather significant global warming for several months thereafter (some call that flooded period of time as 40 days and nights), all of which is somewhat exactly like what a Sirius class super nova would have contributed, but what do I know, perhaps we should ask the Dogon tribe.

Now, I don't mean to be suggesting that certain folks shouldn't be looking at 50+ million lightyear super nova events as meaningless dribble but, it just seems rather odd that within Earth's history recording of such a comparatively local event and with Sirius being so relatively close (less than 9 lightyears), that just perhaps some of those billions of tax exempt dollars should have been focused upon what's within our realm, as even though a mere 9 lightyears is still humanly unobtainable but, at least that's well within microwaving Earth, at least that's 5+ million times better off than the closest of those other super nova events and, of way more than hundreds of millions of times closer than the vast majority of other super nova, whereas good old Sirius a/b/c is not only terrifically big but essentially within our existing (Earth based) telescopic expertise and, it is still representing by far the most significant other gravitational influence upon our solar system and, perhaps there's even a great deal more to be discovered, of which you obviously can't discover squat if you're not looking and measuring upon Sirius a/b/c.

Excuse me, I'm also confused about what's in the sky that's not of red shift, as not absolutely everything is moving itself away from Earth, yet the recent NOVA production on those super nova failed to mention upon even one such object, as though we're situated at the big-bang center and absolutely everything is progressing away from us (aren't we special). Seems that, besides previously mapped asteroids and meteors, from time to time there's a number of worthy "Earth Killer" space rocks that come very close to us and, usually our NASA informs us about such long after it's too late to do anything, where even some of those lesser space rocks of which our NASA claims they track anything much larger than a foot in diameter, yet a few school bus sized rocks seem to glance off or smash into Earth's atmosphere fairly often, where again our crack NASA is either asleep at the switch or perhaps they're having sex on those consoles again or perhaps they're not really looking, at least not nearly as hard as claimed. So, that's certainly been confusing to say the least.

So this is just super great, now that we already known of vast distent places which we could never have reached at any previous or future point in time, those are also the very same distent locations that are becoming ever further away. This means that at some point in someone other's future, as in a million or perhaps more likely a billion generations worth from now, that they'll be able to goto the moon, land on it and go about taking all sorts of photographs, utilizing by then the finest digital cameras which by then will offer a full million to one (true 256 bit color) contrast ratio and there will honestly be none of those pesky vibrant stars anywhere in those images (each digital negative will be at least 100 GigaBytes worth of quantum code, but by then a billion terabyte CRAY computer will be within your wrist watch and, it'll only cost you a million bucks worth of that ink in order to print each of those pictures).

Earth to morons; it's time, if not past due, to rethink things through

I've offered this analogy before and I'll probably say it again;  as much as you and I would truly like to see that there are rules of going about everyday business as well as presumably war, and where those rules are to be equally enforced. Unfortunately, as in any actual real world situations (especially of any cold-war) there are no stinking rules, at least none that are enforced. As how the hell do you think those British and French ever got away with intentionally downing the Russian SST with our knowledge, or how the Pope managed to kill off those millions of Cathars as well as of anyone associating with them because, obviously if there were such rules of fair play and of fundamental morals, that sort of slaughter simply wouldn't have happened. Just like the 6-Day war involving the USS LIBERTY and of our never ending cold-war(s) against the USSR which most certainly included those Apollo missions, where all of those events were a "no rules" contest of wit and will, except as for the ultimate cardinal rule about your not getting caught, as everyone believes in and practices that rule.

At least the idea has always been to NOT get yourself caught until several generations have passed and there's absolutely no viable recourse, which should work unless your religion just happens to be Jewish or perhaps lead by bin Laden or of almost any true Islamic or muslim warlord Iatolla Khomieni, as their version of history has not being so easily replaced with what's published within your typically for-profit and power motivated warlord's empire, thus begetting skewed versions of the past as well as modern history and that's including science and physics, where even without publishing such skewed books, others of certain religious followings simply seem to have a better memory than most of us.

Speaking a little more about cost which directly affects you and me;  Whenever nations such as America forces the cost of living to accelerate by as little as 10%, as happening right now, that factor can have a direct 100% inflationary impact upon lesser nations competing for the same world market and/or energy reserves (make that a 1000% impact if your country has become our focus as being another one of those axis of evil sorts), where the only recourse may become a retreat into their having to dig in and make due, as in cutting down old growth forest, stripping their lands for whatever surface subsistence and otherwise badly squandering whatever's underground in exchange for sometimes obtaining pennies on the dollar.

By the freaking way;  once you've gone about thoroughly messing up a working government (even a bad one), you've got the initial results that's benefiting America and/or that of our friends (American interest) seem to prefer, that being chaos and/or total control over whatever assets those folks thought they once had to themselves. I guess the good news is; when the rain forest is sufficiently stripped, land thoroughly eroded, coal deposits exposed and spontaneously set ablaze (for decades and/or until it burns itself out), then besides all the physical long term devastation, nearly complete devastation and/or extermination of all wildlife and we've achieved our very own greenhouse pollution running seriously amuck, obviously there's going to be some remaining tempers flaring and simply otherwise some very unhappy campers out there, those that may have reached their limits. In other words, their having little if anything to lose.

But never fear; we have our own warlord Bush and most likely his clones and those NASA/NSA/DoD Borgs to rescue our sorry side of the equation, at whatever the price and de-stabilisation to the world may have been inevitable (most humans being so pethetically stupid as well as arrogant and all), where at least our warlord is not being nearly as vile as the Pope's efforts at exterminating those supposedly nasty Cathars (but the war over Earth's resources isn't over yet, nor will thoughts of revenge simply go away).

Cost related to almost anything Venus (what cost?)

I seem to have a number of other confusions about Venus; first of all I'm the observer and now the messenger that merely pointed out some rather unexpected formations that so far fail at meeting the criteria of being entirely natural. At least I've looked just about everywhere and, in fact I did locate SAR images of similar natural as well as artificial attributes, those appearing exactly like the common terrain of Venus as well as for those of what looks like a bridge crossing a significant channel or canyon, I've even located formations that looked exactly like a community of structures as well as for indicating a high degree of rational infrastructure, including that of lesser complex reservoirs and tarmacs. The only problem being, so far these other reference SAR images were of Earth and, those unusually artificial looking formations were in fact entirely artificial (as in man made).

In other words I'm speculating; if there's a discovery and you have an actual image of something that's most likely artificial, then there's little cost needed for others otherwise having to randomly re-explore some other planet, as that's obviously quite costly (especially if it's outside our solar system) as well as time consuming (sort of like looking for that micro needle in the hay stack, except that hay stack is damn near the size if not bigger than Earth and you're a million miles away.

I know that I've asked of others to pitch in with their research efforts, as to locating anything similar that can be confirmed as being purely natural or preferably artificial, as surely there must be such images of equally complex reservoirs, suspension or other bridge formats, tarmacs, township communities, causeways and a bloody host of other artificial looking attributes that are according to the "status quo" clearly understood as being defined as naturally formed (only offering their illusion of being artificial), as otherwise how can any honest critic be so arrogantly certain that of what's on Venus is not more likely artificial than not.

Being the confused dyslexic sole that I am, for some odd reasons whenever I'm having to criticize another, as in my returning the warm and fuzzy bashing favor, I tend to utilize past and supposedly well proven references in order to support my arguments and, often I've used my personal photographic experiences and subsequent expertise to reinforce and accomplish more of the same but, always having those independent resources at hand, which I believe I've openly shared with others.

Seems of those criticizing the holy heck out of my efforts, they do not have such expertise nor do they offer any observational images whatsoever. In other words, for some unexplained reason those recent Mars images of a frozen planet, of what looks like frozen trees and perhaps even a few anti-freeze glass tunnels or hopefully just really big and radiation proof worms are entirely OK to discussing their existence. Even though the Mars images are only of optical CCD format and not even acquired anywhere near the ideal perspective, as most were nearly plan views and those of any angle were obviously still badly impaired by whatever lighting and shadows, whereas SAR imaging offers no lens distortions, doesn't require illuminations, plus it can see somewhat into the substances and thus help to determine the nature of what's getting imaged (8 bits worth of being fluid, soft, average, medium hard and so on), as it looks and records at least four conformations per pixel and then certified software acquires and assimilates the average of those multiple looks into pixels at 8 bits worth of depth or contrast.

Of course, since Venus is 81% the mass of Earth and it has an extremely deep and dense atmosphere, where of a relatively long term mapping mission elected the more stable elliptical orbit format, thereby the distance to target was always changing and of considerably more distance than of anything Mars related. At certain positions the Magellan orbit was simply too high to do us much good except for acquiring pixels of 600+ meters. However the area of GUTH Venus not in that situation, in fact, to the benefit of imaging the surface was greatly elevated at 5+km along with some considerable mountains being imaged at nearly face on and, I believe at the time the satellite was gathering those raw pixels at a resolution of perhaps 94 meters. I understand that the raw imaging conversion software accomplished for the sake of mapping standardization was continually adjusting every pixel into representing 75 meters, but even if so, even if that should turn out as 225 meters per pixel, as that's not modifying upon the contents of any pixel, just adjusting the size and thereby uniformity to every associated pixel in order to fit the global mapping requirements (that's not distortions nor introducing false pixels).

Ask yourself this; what would be the point of utilizing our best NSA spy satellite imaging technology if the system and/or imaging software were to be randomly introducing false pixels and/or distorting upon absolutely anything. Seems that would be entirely self defeating. Yet that's exactly what my opponents seem to be stipulating (is this another insider joke or what?).

The following 1:1 image is a crop that I've inserted at 4 X, so that you can more easily count pixels. If you'll notice those three significant vertical rocks, located to the SE of the fluid arch, where the larger one is roughly a 10 pixel vertical count and at least a 3 pixel top. Since this is nearly a head-on or face view of those rocks (via the Magellan perspective taken at 43), if those were to become 225 meters per pixel (a size determined by some of my best critics), being that we're looking nearly face on to that rock, that's a good 2250 meter rise with 675 meter top, which is certainly quite big but entirely possible. I personally do not believe we're anywhere near that large but, what do I know?

As I've stipulated before, you should get your own original master image from the NASA archives and start yourself off from there. For pixel counting within the following image, you may want to apply your screen magnifier at 2X. In case your photo software is not GIF compatible, this is the very same 1:1 JPG version of the following image.

a 1:1 extract of GUTH Venus inserted at 4 X

Of course, if you're officially blind, as official image interpreting goes, white canes and a dog just isn't going to cut it. However, that doesn't mean that you'll be losing your image interpreting job at NASA, as they still have all those Apollo/lunar images that will forever need your professional opinion as to regarding their authenticity, but that's only because the known laws of science and physics (not to mention photography) simply do not jive for this village idiot but, somehow everything jives for the legions of pro-NASA crowds.

So, it's confusing perhaps to some when I've elected upon utilizing the more conservative 75 meter per pixel as a formula in order to estimate upon the size or capacity of certain items, where obviously of anything larger would be better as for becoming all that much more so, unlikely that such unusually large formations are so natural as my opponents keep harping away at, still without their presenting any observational evidence whatsoever is simply adding further insult to their injuries.

If the pixels are those being representative of an original raw 225 x 225 meter area, then that's truly great in respect to such items like the suspension bridge, even better yet for that tarmac consideration, certainly terrific news for those reservoirs and their aqueduct of which goes from holding merely 50 million cubic meters to nearly 500 million cubic meters (I'll certainly buy that), the airship that at 75 meters per pixel offers a raw buoyancy of 800+ thousand tonnes goes to 7200 thousand tonnes if H2 were applied (merely 2880 thousand tonnes upon N2) and so on about understanding the multiple structures within what looks very much like any Earth township in similar SAR format. Even that fluid arch is quite another worthy consideration, especially if we're applying the 225 meter per pixel criteria, which is fine and dandy by me because, that item alone is most likely something entirely natural and, that too is where bigger is better because, when you've got that many pixels assembled into another one of a kind super duper arch (presumably fluid as of lava or mud like substance) that which clearly indicates it's beginning and it's termination with equally secondary erosion patterns, that which seem to make perfectly rational geology sense as well as for recognizing the laws of known physics, where that item in itself seems to be worth more than all of what's been derived from all of the Mars probes combined.

So, as you can see (that's another joke, about seeing and all), I'm very confused because, when I've pointed out the "fluid arch", where this item is certainly something that's entirely surrounded by all that purely hot and nasty Venus terrain, as well is itself being a most likely natural attribute, yet these same subservient folks delivering their version of "spin" and "damage control" on behalf of sustaining their "everything's hot and nasty" status quo are seemingly utilizing the same engagement rules of any cold-war, in a manner of applying whatever "disinformation" as to invalidate the discovery of even upon what's most likely natural, as whether or not in this case it's of something purely natural and/or of what's most likely artificial, as where this instance we have an arch as being somewhat bigger than hell, this is certainly a plus factor in my village idiot way of thinking.

Perhaps I'm not the only one being confused by all this NASA orchestrated and moderated flak, as obviously my critics are equally if not more so confused, as they continue to believe in our NASA's orchestrated Apollo missions as published and, trusting in the Arthur Andersen tradition that our GAO fox guarding those chickens is only bloated obscenely fat because of eating junk food from McDonald's. The fact that a good number of those chickens have been missing, especially those encharge of the lunar mission photo negatives, as well as those chickens in charge of movies depicting the 1/6th gravity scaled prototype landers (as all of those chickens have been way gone), just as of the chickens holding onto the supposedly thermally stressed and radiated other stuff are either gone or that material having been redefined as being entirely Earth like because that moon was somehow created form Earth (somehow all those impacts were focused upon the moon and not Earth, perhaps that's because the lunar gravity was once many times that of Earth and, that's also why the moon [like a spitwad] isn't rotating). That last part was another joke.

Now folks (I'm including all those braille image interpreters); if you're at all interested, I do believe I have some perfectly good ideas about that moon of ours, as in where it may have come from and/or with which other planet it may have been associated with. Even though our moon is somewhat unrelated to the Venus of today, just maybe it's a whole lot more related than you've been lead to think.

Other confusion has obviously come from the official lunar reflective issues, as reported by officially moderated NASA resources as for this factor being on average 10%. This is quite odd, especially when a good number of those Apollo images returned a background reflection of something more like 50% (that's in good relationship to those 85% reflective moon suits). Where my confusion comes from is the reference to the moon's average illumination being of 10% solar reflection, where obviously any village idiot looking at the moon can clearly see that there's lighter spots as well as darker zones. If 10% is the average, then it stands to reason that those darkened zones are more likely at 5% (that's nearly soot black) as opposed to the 10% average (at best that's asphalt) as again opposed to the lighter zones being perhaps 20% (that's equal at best to dirty/old concrete). Well, nowhere in those Apollo mission photos did we see anything approaching "soot" and not even asphalt but, we did see darker items of perhaps 25%+ and that was generally contrasted by a good deal of a surrounding 50% reflective foreground as well as background, all of which is nicely calibrated against those nifty moon suits reflecting at 85% as well as a number of known colors on the lander and lunar rover itself. Clear anodized aluminum (75% to 85% depending upon it's finish, excluding polished aluminum which is 95% or better) is certainly another worthy reference that's not going to shift simply because it's situated on the moon.

Further confusion comes from the supposedly solar illumination hot spots that were created only around the subjects being photographed. Another issue involve the +/-250ºF thermal shock along with radiation exposures to that KODAK film. This is quite odd because, on Earth at nowhere nearly as extreme in temperatures, of that very same film within those very same cameras would have been thermally distorted on the high end if not cracked from such terrific cold, not even to mention the radiation impact of which the lens and camera body nor of those film packs would not have helped all that much. We're not talking about any simple 1 second worth of 10 milirad x-ray (as that alone would have notably fogged those negatives), more like that of 0.1 Sv (that's 10 rads) to as much as a combined mission dose of potentially 10 Sv (that's 1000 rads as being in full body exposure format, not just that of an isolated arm or a leg but full body which is including their heads (brains too). Perhaps that's been the confusing problem all along, our astronauts were so radiated that their brains were fried long before they ever reached the moon, thereby they really don't know and/or can't remember what actually took place. Perhaps once they were returned to Earth they were all given new brains because their old ones were totally fried (somehow I'd buy that).

There's even further confusion over that clumping lunar soil/sand, bone dry as not a drop of water was in sight, also not an once of that magic clumping soil/sand ever made itself back to Earth (of all things lunar, that I could have used).

OK, so I'm confused about a good too many issues but, I've offered to post whatever independent research and/or evidence that uphold's the word of God. I'll even do a few retractions and/or post links to whatever truths there are, as I've been offering to do this all along as well as posting any of those opposing geology images acquired from any planet (including Earth) that depicts such highly unusual (not to mention large) attributes as being purely natural, especially of any truly big ones and, I'll even post to whatever physics and/or geology conjectures that could somehow explain how such geology of tectonics and/or lava flows alluded gravity. You'd think two plus years and counting seems more than sufficient, as it's not that I haven't been out there looking for myself, just no cigar unless it's man made (which most cigars are).

So once again; if you have or know of others that have such SAR imaging of similar attributes as those I've identified on Venus or of any other interesting items of such size from any planet (including Earth), those being purely naturally formed, please do forward those to my attention, I'll even insure that you receive all the credit and, I believe our NASA would pay you a million bucks if you could prove me wrong (even a billion would be worth it).

As observationology goes, in this case it's basically "dot connecting" which apparently is not of any recognized astronomy nor science/physics expertise, nor apparently that of any official image interpreting (NIMA.MIL certainly got their faces slapped the last time they tried to help out by connecting those dots associated with the previously failed Mars mission). Unfortunately, this skill is not one of those easily converted into accommodating the affirmative hiring of the blind. Now, I realize that our NASA has little choice but to hire numbers of folks that may be legally blind but, perhaps it been a good thing that these visually impaired employees are those focused upon accomplishing all of NASA's official image interpreting, rather than being encharge of any motor pool.

I do realize that I might have created better paragraphs that even someone other can understand and, as such paragraphs are for those truly interested in the sort of truths this village idiot believes are more important and, more worthy than of any skewed history or make-believe world that been fabricated by the sorts of cloak and dagger cold-war agendas of our crack NASA/NSA/DoD/CIA. I'm only leaving out the FBI and of lesser agencies because they're merely a living joke that's become indirectly as much at fault for 9/11 as the rest of the gang, but it's not worth provoking those black suit butlers unless someone can point the accusing finger at this mess being their idea, as that's more likely reserved for the Gods of NSA/DoD/CIA and of their lead cloak being NASA.

Unfortunately, sometimes I get myself so damn frustrated that I can't see straight. Perhaps that's been the problem all along, even though prior to the past 2.5 years I was entirely pro-NASA, pro-Apollo and even semi pro-American. I too didn't like or perhaps I simply couldn't understand French cooking, nor Muslim or Islamic religions. However, unlike the Pope and of certain other warlords, I wasn't ready and willing to exterminate whomever I didn't like, as that would have set a poor example for the likes of Hitler or rather Hitler want-to-be's...

Instead, I've tried to share this discovery and encourage others into placing their expertise where their mouth is, as quite often I've read from an individual's report upon how it's so possible for other life to have existed elsewhere, yet whenever I've brought anything pro-Venus onto the table it gets bashed, as though the very same science and physics that gave promise to my discoveries and subsequent ideas towards other life simply fail to function for Venus, even though the life essential energy and all of the required elements far surpasses what's needed by their own standards when being applied to places humanity will never reach (that certainly a safe bet, as no one can easly prove otherises, as least not within your lifetime).

True; I'll concur that it's relatively hot and nasty for any human to habitat Venus, at least not without a good deal of technology on our side, of which I believe even this is possible but still not the proper nor moral thing to be doing. The last thing we want to do is infect another world with Earth's inferior genes of arrogance and stupidity, not to mention greed, as that could mean the end of whatever survived the onset of their greenhouse environment, meaning the end to life NOT as we know of before we've even figured out how they ever managed without our help.

So, unlike yourself and because there so much here to convey, I'll need to type things out, make loads of corrections and re-edit a half dozen times, only to remain somewhat confused about those bashing this topic and/or about my wasting such valuable time upon such snookered fools that have been so well snookered that they can't afford to realize the truth when they see it because, that would make them into even bigger fools and of worse village idiots than I am (apparently life doesn't get any worse).

It's confusing to believe that this form of truth opposition must be having represent those new quantum laws of science and physics that are somehow able to optionally exclude Venus, their able to circumvent on demand the slightest possibilities of planetary evolution as well as the very evolution of life itself, on sort of a need to know priority or perhaps catch as catch can basis. As otherwise there's only the worst possible kind of ulterior motives and of the only true victim is nearly all of America itself along with the other half of our thoroughly snookered world, especially of those worshiping NASA/NSA/DoD and of the wake of carnage they've left behind. As other than all that, I can't honestly figure out how any prudent scientist can possibly hold a straight face while ignoring what I have discovered in spite of all the officially orchestrated flak.

There now, all is a bit more confusing than ever but that actually wasn't so bad, hardly any warm and fuzzy favor returning of flak and, my insults have been tempered towards focusing upon the blind, catholics and otherwise pagan God worshipers and of a few warlord cults in between. The part about Martha Stewart and Gates was merely an observation that such individuals seem to know a good investment opportunity when they see or quietly hear about one, even if that should take a little privet insider information and/or deceptive marketing techniques which just so happens to bankrupt nearly all the honest competition while otherwise shafting your own fellow investors and even flushing your own employees down the nearest toilet. Since this Venus discovery of other life has little if anything to do with astronomy, apparently absolutely nothing as recognized by our current state of astrophysics and otherwise having to be based upon entirely proven laws of well established science, physics and then obviously upon rational biology evolution of other life NOT as we know it, of whatever has managed to survive upon Venus in spite of our NASA; therefore, if you're still against what this discovery has to offer, you can relax and just return to your suckling off those NASA utters for your next round of dwindling tax funded exploits (good luck and, don't bother booking any seat on the next shuttle mission for myself, as no thank you, I'll pass unless you can tell me exactly where that Boeing/TRW laser cannon is, and of whom has the ignition keys).

To the INDEX page: GUTH Venus (with loads of recent updates)
alternate URL's:  and
Copyright © 2000/2001/2002/2003 - Brad E. Guth
GUTH Venus: All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: Brad Guth - Brad Guth / IEIS   ~  1-253-8576061
created: April 07, 2003

Brad Guth / IEIS