This page has become devoted onto all of my undying loyal critics, like all of the Wizard Davids and of all the Spencers and even of good old Greg Moore (mostly I'm informed those individuals are of the old bogus Apollo guard sector of NASA/NSA/DoD's Apollo Borgs, plus there's all of their soon to be retired clones of "spin" and "damage control" Borgs, as well as by now a few third generation niece and nephew Borgs by way of incest just coming on line and, I'll bet to venture there's enen a incest cloned fido Borg as well);
This page is also intended for all of my auto-down-loaders, including the Associated Press (AP), USNEWSWIRE (USN), the recent fools at BBC, NASA/NSA/DoD and most recently on behalf of the Lord/Wizard David types.I've also introduced my anti-critic variation that should to some make a small difference or at least offer an alternate understanding, as it obviously will not matter one iota to any true critic.
I'm never all that surprised at others not trusting in everything that I have to say about Venus, even though there's absolutely no ulterior motive in sight as for myself to be fibbing. I've never expected others to grasp the fullest of implications, as you would have to be seriously smart in order to achieve that capability. What I have been surprised about is the fact that those opposing have been taking their valuable time (many at taxpayer expense) to discredit my every move and, to otherwise orchestrate a good deal of "spin" and "damage control" (dog wagging), all of which being towards benefitting their "status quo", as to whatever Lord NASA stipulates as truth, such as whatever is published within thousands of NASA moderated documents and of anything the least bit associated with having the NASA stamp of approval, such as NOVA and National Geographic, which has been just about everything associated with space research and exploration thoroughly covered by the moderation of NASA.
I'm continualy amazed by those supporting NASA and only NASA, as they seem so willing to purger their souls away, upon such matters as that of their avoiding everything Apollo and now everything Venus and, towards staunchly discrediting anything that's the least bit contrary to their internal commandments. Of all things, there's even been a good deal of purgery regarding those three Sirius stars and of the planet associated with Sirius-C, all of which according to pro-NASA types is being equally touted as entirely unimportant and of absolutely no gravitational influence whatsoever upon our solar system. Even when our Venus at times has frequently been in extremely close (0.27 AU) conjunction with Earth, as well as in darn good alignment for combined gravitational influences of the sun and that of our moon, according to these "dog wagging" jokers there's apparently been no measurable influence whatsoever (quite the opposit of ESA's interest in Venus), including that of whatever accumulative time affect had to offer, as somehow the duration or dwell of such gravity pull has been yet another non issue among pro-NASA Borgs (in other words; 720 hours worth of supposedly much lesser gravity influence is still not of any worth as compared to an hour's worth of lunar pull, as somehow time or duration of this lunar gravity pull only means a great deal when that's associated only with that of our moon but, simply not worth squat by any other body associations such as Venus nor of the massive Sirius system), even though all of that Venus pull had been in good alignment with the sun and that of our moon, that's still oddly an absolute "nothing" consideration according to those opposing everything Venus and, that's lately become nearly as much so mysterious as for our attempting to understand much of anything truthful regarding those Apollo missions, as those issues suddendly become equally taboo, unless you intend to freely accept their words, as otherwise NASA has no viable lunar substances nor other rational associations of explanation over the widest of topics, which seems entirely odd when we supposedly had all the lunar goods and ample opportunities as well as the cold-war incentives as to properly document whatever to death (now we can't hardly document squat). If all of this opposition to the other truth isn't blatant cultism, then I'll guess that I don't understand what would be considered a cult (apparently Hitler was never a cult according to pro-NASA types, just another Santa Claws gone bad).
Obviously according to Ron Miller, Albert Einstein was apparently dead wrong about gravity: at least as recently reported by Wizard Ron, whereas the entire equation of gravity is apparently bogus, even more so whatever time allotment as any factor is an entirely meaningless element. In other words, Einstein was dead wrong, as well as for being dead. This also must apply to those Apollo radiation exposures, as an individual measurement of a given moment is all that need be contended with and, of any lengthly time factor as being exposed to such repeated solar flare radiation flak is somehow simply not the slightest factor, thus equally, there's been absolutely no apparent gravitational influence by the massive Sirius star system nor of anything whatsoever from that of Venus, at least not as any result of time and/or by the nearby .27 AU position. Perhaps this somehow also explains why our two deep space probes haven't traveled nearly as far as their gravity equasions stipulated, that's because time of whatever gravity influence is simply not been an actual factor and, if others had used a factor of time, then obviously their calculations are equally bogus.
To think; if others and I had at first known or been able to obtain an official NASA moderated/certified page or two, as that pertaining to all of the terrific raw energy potentials of Venus (as for example of anything Mars; that's a task that's easily accomplished in one brief sentence of "there is almost none, as in zilch"), of those Venus energy solutions being of such natural considerations that can be easily derived just from the atmospheric pressure and thermal differential dymanics and, as otherwise via easily accessible active surface geothermals. Then as to CO2-->CO/O2 for obtaining whatever tonnes of O2 and CO as fuel and oxidiser considerations, like how that CO2 can otherwise be efficiently excited as for generating xenon illumination potential, like also of our comprehending upon the vastly superior aerodynamic (nearly hydrodynamic) efficiencies of what that Venus lower atmospheric ocean of CO2 can offer, along with the superior buoyancy aspects as for rigid airship considerations. Like how about the options of obtaining essentially free/propetual energy via thermopile (warm fusion) capabilities by applying known alloys that would have survived their greenhouse environment with electrons to spare. Knowing of the relative ease and efficiency of obtaining a number of fluids by subsequently distilling out useful substances such as H2O and of processing that into H2O2 (especially from such a resource of those thick cool nighttime clouds), as then obviously others and myself would not have been all that surprised at my finding such a good number of signs or signatures of artificial considerations.Seems that since Venus was most likely not always so hot, it's too bad that our NASA was so totally unaware of all this energy potential, as with such easily obtainable energy resources at hand (unlike anything Mars and in some aspects far better then anything Earth has to offer), almost any planet could host intelligent life, as wherever there's sufficient spectrums of UV and IR from sunlight, obviously there's going to be energy and, where there's energy there's certainly a means (via evolution and/or technology) by which life can otherwise manage within an environment that's only relatively recent (in astrophysical timeline) become entirely unsuited to life as we know it and, not that that should even matter. Naturally, this still remains perhaps millions of life forms of which we do not know of, or in Lord NASA's case, seems they would rather not know of (as in another aspect of one of those "three monkeys" syndrome).
Of course, wouldn't you just know it; out of all the taxpayer funded NASA qualified staffing (thousands), plus numerous other research grants and subsequent studies upon Venus, as I bothered to check and it seems, there never was an honest effort nor focus at our identifying upon one damn positive energy worthy consideration and, absolutely nothing whatsoever as for our identifying anything potentially artificial. That would be like those multiple Apollo crews failing to record their true lunar position via those vibrant stars blazing away in that pitch black lunar sky, or perhps like Lewis and Clark failing to report on the rivers, the lakes the waterfalls nor even of the Pacific Ocean, as otherwise just to be reporting upon all the horribly nasty environment and nastier yet natives that wanted only to eat you alive (all because I'm certain there must have been at least one native somewhere that would have). Perhaps NASA should have sent Lewis and Clark to the moon, along with the same instructions to only report and record upon the worst possible attributes, at least that would help explain why there's no vibrant stars in any one of those thousands of high resolution (radiation as well as thermal shock proof) format camera images (btw; KODAK and Hasselblad are still waiting to hear an explanation as to how NASA did that), not to even mention the entire lack of any test flight documentation of that trustworthy lander technology, that which could have been easily scaled to suite Mars, except that no one seems to recall exactly how those landers ever functioned (sort of like those lost tribes that vanished into thin air).
Of course folks; as for discovering life as we do NOT know of, that's certainly all together an open door (apparently a tightly closed and hermetic sealed door as far as NASA and all of their following flocks of "all knowing" wizards are concerned). Perhaps just like our previously unknown deep ocean life, where there has been an obvious abundance of pressure, nearly zero O2, absolutely no sunlight and in some instances are toxic elements to boot, where perhaps according to NASA's interpretation of other planetary life standards, that deep ocean life is still an illusion, yet with such odds stacked against life as we previously knew of, there certainly was deep ocean life (lots), as in spite of their predicament, as well as in spite of NASA or perhaps I should have redirected this topic towards NOAA's department of "Duh!", as that's the same pathetic department that failed to report upon the gravitational influences of Venus when it was sustained for such a good amount of days and weeks, as sufficiently near enough as to affect Earth's platetonics, tides and weather patterns (especially November 4th and 5th).
I was recently asked by someone (pretending as not being a NASA mole or Borg) that was obviously a full blown pathetic pro-NASA mole or worse, as to point out the location of "GUTH Venus", as for doing so upon one of NASA's lowest possible resolution maps of Venus.
Clearly my URL pages have more then indicated upon the exact locations and, you can easily accomplish your own enlargements (from NASA's original SAR files if need be) perhaps far better then of anything I have to offer (NIMA.mil utilizes 20X PhotoShop all the time), so, if they can do such, then surely what's stoping yourself from accomplishing the very same results, which according to my critics and thereby your friends, that should be at least twice upon anything I can deliver (in fact most of my efforts are at 5X) and, in other words, your enlargements should totally reveal upon the nature of the area as presumably being comprised of entirely natural tectonics, lava flows and weathering or erosion patterns that were responsible, as those accounting for absolutely everything being so entirely natural. So, exactly what are you waiting for, "put up or shut up".
Oddly, my enlargements also accomplished a damn fine job of depicting all that's so natural (resampling or not, zooming in or out, reversing the process which proves no alterations from the original were ever introduced), along with all that's not so natural. Since none of the natural formations were altered/distorted by the software enlarging and filtering process that I utilized, so how come there's such a degree of entirely artificial attributes that also seem to look exactly as their 1:1 pixel/pixel bsae imaging indicated, just a whole lot better outlined as being enlarged, as equally undistorted and as exactly depicting just like all of the surrounding natural stuff was enlarged except, oddly there's a whole lot more artificial looking stuff surrounded by all that natural stuff (trying it upside down, inside out or even backwards with other photo software and the results are the same).
I often forget about some of you being the die-hard critics that you are, especially if it's someone other's research and discovery, even more so if I'm (God forbid) returning the bashing favor. Seems like the sooner you Borg mole freaks get with the program of enlarging upon and thereby showing off to others and myself all those supposedly natural formations, those as being just as sophisticated if not more so complex, yet easily comprehended and thus understood and/or documented as being entirely natural (btw; you can use SAR's of Earth if you want), the sooner I'll be on my illusionary way.
On the other hand, your supreme expertise and input is much needed and, I'll certainly post links directly towards whatever you have to share, even if it's entirely negative. However, for some unknown reason, many of my critics don't want to accomplish their own pages nor as to being mentioned elsewhere, which is entirely odd, if in fact they're so freaking right about everything.
With regard to our monitoring for artificial xenon illuminations; As to stipulate that Hubble, TRACE and/or SOHO can't image upon Venus, well folks, that's another freaking lie if there ever was, as being quite similar to when those opposing using Hubble as for imaging upon those Apollo remains, NASA's moles stipulated that the moon was simply "too bright" (that was a bold lie and, they knew it). Besides that one being an entirely bogus lie, now that Hubble can in fact (obviously that's at nearest juncture) image at 12.3 raw meters/pixel, with PhotoShop at 10X that's 1.23 meters of certified imaging, especially upon such contrasting objects as those lander remains against an asphalt background of merely 10% solar reflectance, yet there's still been nothing accomplished because Hubble has been so busy looking at 100 < 1000+ light-year distant targets. Besides Hubble, there's also been Earth based SAR capability of technically 1.5 raw meters/pixel upon the lunar surface, yet no public access to those images. Go figure.
Not that it matters to my critics but, I'm not the one criticizing upon what NASA and others found and/or established, thereby recorded as existing on Venus, as most all that complex nasty atmospheric's and extreme geological stuff is more likely right then not (perhaps not as extreme as for being within the season of nighttime). However, it seems as though my recent uncovering of something (actually quite a few items) that's in addition to all those other findings has become quite another issue, as apparently we simply can't have none of that. In fact, NASA can't have nor provide an once of support nor effort as for merely considering the neighboring planet "possibilities" as those associated with a few newly discovered, or if you will, invented "positives" (like the massive H2/N2 buoyancy for H2O gathering as well as their above cloud astronomy capability, vertical differential CO2 wind power and of CO2-->CO/O2) all of which could nicely support life (likely not as we know it but, with that sort of energy, even you and I could manage) as sufficiently evolved and obviously a whole lot tougher and, as to a greater extent smarter and more capable then Earth humans (as we can't hardly figure out how to continue living here on Earth, without our taking out crowded tall buildings by airplanes loaded with large numbers of "used to be" nice folk).
For many, especially of those convinced that I'm entirely mad, as for some unexplained reason(s), most of my critics have not been the least bit willing as to review recent updates, as they simply wanted to see me burn in hell or perhaps better yet, burn out on Venus. So this entire page has certainly become somewhat of a boring repeat (No. 1001) or brief rehash of what's within other previous pages, along with a few new zingers.
It has not slipped what's left of my mind; I just recently put aside the expectations that most others associated with astronomy care, as most (irregardless of whatever they say or even publish) really don't give a tinkers damn about anything truly worthy of humanity (example; Hubble), especially if that happens to involve someone others humanity and/or least of all include lizardkind and, all that much more so rejected if those are Islamic lizard folk. The likelihood that others do not or simply can't visualize nor agree with what I perceive is existing in my selected images, like that of any bridge, multiple other nearby structures, airships or even of those massive and complex reservoir issues, which as I've stated before, your better idea as to what these unnatural formations represent could become a whole lot more correct, just as long as you don't pretend such are anything all that natural, nor that the dark centers of those reservoirs or content of that rather obvious fluid arch are not of something other then fluid like, unless of course you have your own aerial imaging examples that supports your beliefs that such items have been recorded as such and confirmed as being entirely natural, as then I'll not only concede but offer my fullest credits and even post a front page link to your research, just so as to further prove my sincerity. For some unexplained reasons, non have managed to accomplish this supposedly simple task (even though all of my critics have been so absolute as to everything being so entirely natural). This obviously means, you could be the first to prove my critics are entirely right, by simply offering those aerial images (there are thousands of such SAR images) of Earth that qualify whatever it is you think is going on and, as that being so damn natural. Since according to my critics, this is so obviously a mistaken identity issue and, because they're so right all the time, what exactly have you been waiting for or afraid of? How could you possibly go wrong?
Perhaps before you proceed, you might bother yourself as to recheck my most recent updates and syntax corrections (unlike anything NASA, I can admit to mistakes and apply corrections, sort of like the unpresented event of NASA correcting upon those lunar samples as being entirely Earth like), as to update and add to the copies you may have previously taken from my URL. If you are a new (first time) critic, you may need to see for yourself that, in spite of and/or perhaps because of my large base of critics, I've managed to improve upon my delivery, as a work in progress, in spite of the inabilities of others critical to my research that seem to fail as functioning like any true researcher or perhaps in many ways, fail at that of being morally human.
OOPS; now I've pissed off Lord David again, and to think, all I ever did was offer the fullest of credits for that of his seeing absolutely nothing whatsoever artificial (I thought that was a really good thing for Wizard David). That's a fact and obviously he's absolutely right, simply because he's either associated with NASA or would not object as to being so (besides, he probably has no other alternative by which he can live with, literally). If anything astronomy of his doing is being published or accredited, then it's either being as such moderated by NASA or he is in the fullest of compliance according to their criteria, thereby approved and, if that's not being associated with NASA, then I don't know what is.
It just so happens, I did not agree with all of his supposedly qualified renditions, those clearly focused upon purely opposing my observations at any cost, as those having but one obvious agenda, of one prime mission and, that was to disqualify upon absolutely everything he possibly could about my discovery and subsequent ongoing research. That's fairly odd, not that I was even looking for total vindication, just some mutual realization that there's somewhat more to Venus then of purely natural stuff. As from such a supposedly qualified critic, I then expected at least one lousy supportive aerial image or of any leads to one image and thereby proof that backs up what Wizard David claims, as for everything being of absolutely natural formation (period!). So far there's been "no cigar", not that somewhere in this galaxy there isn't such, just that others opposing my discovery (so many like those Lord/Wizard David types) can't seem to deliver upon one lousy image of any rille or canyon or whatever ditch of similar or of damn near any size offering up such a horizontal bridge like natural attribute that's spanning 1+km worth (let alone associated with any road or railbed like considerations) and, as further according as to so many of his opposing assessments, that distinctively horizontal attribute (by his very own superior calculation) is more likely 2+km overall worth of a very horizontal span. So I ask that you or others simply show me, where's the satellite/aerial observational images and/or whatever documentation database, as from anything Earth or from any other planet that depicts such capable horizontal "big ass ditch jumping" attributes as such being so entirely natural?
If I'm supposed to prove that such occurrences are artificial, then I believe my critics also need to at least establish and thereby support their opposing contentions and, as according to most of my devoted critics, as such NASA G-69 Saints seem to go, they apparently don't have to do one damn supportive thing, at least as little or nothing that even reinforces their statements nor upholds their supposed knowledge of such planetary attributes being of supposedly purely natural geological attributes (even though there's no supporting arguments or even conjectures that can force such artificial looking patterns to happen). I've spent the last 20+ months looking specifically for anything similar and, guess what folks, I've located multiple SAR images containing all sorts of various horizontal attributes spanning all sorts of natural things, however folks and wizards, and at least as of so far, each and every one of those examples are without any doubt man made considerations (especially of those depicting bridges of various formats) and, thereby as artificial as all get out.
So, as per Wizard David's recent request, I'll certainly be removing his proper name, then referring to those of his type as "pro-NASA or perhaps as generic Wizard David types", as in that way no one will ever realize upon which pathetic fool I actually talking about. So, this acknowledgment page may become the last intentional reference to this now fictitious individual Borg (unless he stipulates otherwise). I'll even share retraction per retraction.
I just did a brief web search for "David" as well as for "Wizard David" (there are thousands of such David's and several with the word "wizard" associated) so, unless that middle initial ("W") of your's stands for "Wizard", other then you and your closest friends that already viewed your real name associated with my previous post, which has since been totally revised, I see no significant fault, and besides, you could be entirely right about absolutely everything and, it's just my opinion otherwise, along my with tossing in a few analogies, that for some may help put things in perspective. The idea is obviously to attract and hold the attention, no point otherwise, so you can jump right back in with specific statements which I'll quote (in full context) and/or simply apply a link to your very own URL page, that way I'll have no control whatsoever and, like so many other critics, you can just bash away until your heart's content. In fact, it might even be a darn good idea if I just posted the body of context from your emails (all of them if you like and, you can do the same), I'll just exclude any address or other identifiers to the best of my abilities.
Wizard/Lord David has re-stipulated once again, that my arguments (I presume he means all of them) are those chuck full of "inaccuracies". Duh, I totally agree, as an observational sort of guy (experienced in a variety of other matters), I'm not the ologest expert nor as for grammar or syntax, even regarding my statements or references as to the Venus 2900 hour nighttime is not entirely "accurate", barometric pressures could be off by some degree (even though others in his purely "critical to everything corner" [especially if it's not their idea] seem to be re-assessing such data and subsequently conjecturing all the time, somehow that's OK), where my contentions as to there being artificial attributes as well as a rather substantial number of natural energy resources (actually quite a few, besides all the surface and sub-surface geothermal stuff) as residing within that 4+bar/km worth of mostly CO2 atmosphere and, as to my admittedly optimistic assessment of the elevated (5 to 10 km) extended nighttime temperature of approaching 500K, this also could certainly be off by a hundred or so, not that good old evolution along with a little technology couldn't have resolved all sorts of such concerns (especially if having the proper motivation for doing such existed), however, in order to ever realize and thereby focus resources and capable talents upon any of that, as potentially ever happening, unlike the Wizard David's, one needs to be open to and then made aware of the possible existence of life (I realize that's totally contrary to every fiber and stitch of data currently upheld by Lord NASA as well as their crack teams of warm and fuzzy wizards and saints), of at least pre-greenhouse life and/or of their "Easter Island" syndrome or of whatever else caused their species to simply give up and die without a fight or, as according to so many of my esteemed wizard friends or perhaps Lord David again, of never accomplishing anything artificial and certainly not sustaining the life which that amount of infrastructure would have required, as it never existed in the first place.
So Mr. Fictitious Wizard David, and as to all of those cold-war/nondisclosure "stuck-in-a-rut" pro-NASA as well as pro-NSA/DoD types, how in the freaking hell did that distinctively horizontal attribute so naturally materialize itself, spanning such a rille or canyon or ditch, then so nicely further associate itself with a more likely road or railbed looking attribute (or if you must insist; highly unusual [one of a galactic kind] sequence of mysterious tectonic and erosion occurrences)? And do remember, this messily horizontal item (as big as it is) is but one of the lesser of so many far more sizable and interesting of artificial worthy considerations, but then lucky for you, conveniently they don't seem to exist either.
Going by my opposition's point of view; Those Cuban missiles must never have existed as well, as those were very badly photographed at nearly 90 degrees (worst possible 2D plan view) and, with a pathetic camera and film at that, which can't see through camouflage, can't see through weather, can't see what's in the shadows nor at night, can't discriminate 2D from 3D nor upon the content or substance of anything, where those images also included a number of atmospheric distortions, lens distortions, lens refractions and then the film developing and printing process can easily have been altered (intentionally or otherwise) as to produce through inner-negative almost anything you can imagine (just exactly like Apollo) and, perhaps that's precisely what happened. Instead of there being actual costly tactical/defensive deployments, a few cardboard placements (2D at that) of equipment and missiles and you've got all of America sweating bullets. Not all that bad as for getting the most bang out of your cold-war buck, using illusion stuff at 1 cent on the freaking dollar and, that's about as good as "disinformation" gets, especially effective when you have really stupid paranoid Americans as your opponents.
I can fully understand and appreciate someone making an effort at redefining upon any number of my conjectures, such as pertaining to that massive airship could actually be just a damn big inter-planetary missile or maybe it's just a very big restraint that looks like an airship with hanger/silo and missile like craft and, how about my rendition of those massive reservoirs collected into that clover shape formation and then obviously connected and/or supplied by that larger somewhat upper reservoir (obviously containing something fluid), where these massive complex symmetrical reservoirs (plus there seems to exist many other lesser constructed reservoir considerations and, that's not even including what's in those 8 symmetrical/parallel aligned spherical tanks situated as recessed near that airship facility, of which could easily be for containing their H2O or even H2O2 under sufficient pressure) could just as well be for containing something other, as for obviously holding any number of fluids other then H2O or H2O2. In the open, the likes of tar and/or of many of other petrol/chemical like substance, such open reservoirs may even contain some of that (H2SO4) acid rain water, as the open existence of H2SO4 fluid is entirely stable at 75+bar, as why exactly would H2SO4 not precipitate onto such mountains is not clear, after all, there are 17+km mountains on Venus and those clouds do lower somewhat at night. Even if it's supposedly so damn hot all the time (irregardless of their 2900+ hours or season of nighttime, though it seems reasonable that the existence of H2SO4 fluid should have long ago smoothed/rounded off every surface feature [which is not been the case], unless those massive containment reservoirs are ceramic), as how about otherwise contemplating spring fed as liquified lead or better yet gold (except those two elements would have SAR imaged at white instead of the near black). So, clearly there may be a wide gap between what you or I see. Obviously my critics are either so stupid or pathetic that they might even think those colors of black to white are optically representative of the appearance of what's to be seen.
Even if my optimistic conjecture of the elevated nighttime temperature is a bit low, so what! (at 75 bar, a fair number of chemicals like H2SO4 and H2O2 will not boil off, not even at 650K). My recent conjecture of distilling out H2O via an efficient vacuum process could be somewhat off, as I've compared as doing such on Earth, where on Venus 1%/kg of the required energy might be needed because of all that atmospheric pressure and ambient nighttime temperature of perhaps at least 500+K, where this 1% energy factor could most certainly be inaccurate, and so what if it turns out more like 10%, as that's still 90% less energy then doing such distillation on Earth?. I could also be a little off or inaccurate about storing H2O, as would be most likely held in large pressure spheres (somewhat like those 8 or so recessed tanks uniformly indicated near that Venus Metro Airship), as pure H2O will most likely boil off at the environment of 75 bar and at anything above 564K (but that's certainly not as for H2O2 nor especially H2SO4).
About airship buoyancy factors for H2 and N2; Since I obtained those figures from another open source (which I've given credit for and some day I intend to repay), I certainly have no ulterior reasons as to doubt such numbers. Certainly I'm open for someone other that may elect to offer a more corrected formula, one that will further refine those numbers upward or down. So, what do you suppose is stoping my "know-it-all" critics from doing such and receiving assurances of my offering the fullest of credits for their efforts. How exactly are my best efforts of my being a little "inaccurate" (in the absence of others afraid to even budge) disqualifying the fundamental observational discovery of there being so many artificial worthy considerations?
OK folks; I fully understand that some of you think I'm quite mad. Well, you're absolutely right, couldn't be more right about that one.
Unlike NASA/NSA/DoD wizards, saints or Gods, I have identified my limits and, I have a number of mere mortal things I'm more then qualified to do, much of what your supreme wizardly abilities couldn't possibly comprehend nor accomplish, even if your life depended upon it. Which is exactly why I believe my critic's form of pathetic humanity could not ever live on Venus, even if they had all the energy resources I've uncovered, technologies and knowledge at hand because, they're damn near God like or at least (grade G69) saints by any NASA/NSA/DoD standards and, they and anyone else associating simply don't have to live nor allow others to live if they elect not to.
Seems so far, most all of my critics are those directly and/or indirectly employed by the taxpayers, and/or fully retired along with all their benefits a king would ever need, yet obviously still fully involved with the likes of NASA/NSA/DoD/CIA/FBI, as working upon whatever "spin" and "damage control", as moles or as double agents, as anything but being honest souls (sort of existing as NASA's living "info-commercials" or perhaps worse as NASA/NSA/DoD's "nondisclosure" enforcement death squads).
Now let me try getting all this straight; you guys supply technical and tactical training and then sophisticated weapons as into the hands of cold blooded murdering tribes of militant Islamic's, so that they can do your dirty cold-war work of further destroying yet another portion of the USSR, that which was merely trying their level best as to oust those nice Taliban souls in the first place. Then you go about providing further training an weapons of mass destruction to Israel because no other nation is so arrogantly disrespectful of humanity enough to get involved. Then to top that off (this may be going back a few years but directly related), you provide Israel with our highest level of space agency (NASA/NSA/DoD) assisted technologies so as to further benefit the Israeli combat operations support, like those during the 6-Day war (today continuing to do essentially the same, even though those same Israeli were directly responsible for the USS LIBERTY fiasco and of all those deaths associated, including the demise of thousands of Islamic Muslim prisoners), then you wonder why others and myself are oddly miffed by all the collateral damage and loss of life (most recently 9/11 and of the what if's remaining) then also, pro-NASA/NSA/DoD types continue to wonder why your true boss (NSA/DoD) can't continue to siphon off sufficient funds from their nearly bankrupt cloak of NASA, so that your hidden agendas can go about flourishing and accomplishing that which otherwise the taxpayers already said NO or would have said NO to. Then through all of this, your supposedly crack space and astronomy wizards manage to lose multiple satellites, a few too many astronauts and even a number of ground support members under highly unusual circumstances. For some unexplained reasons, your deity (NASA/NSA/DoD) and fellow saints and their flocks of devoted "damage control" worshipers, all of this makes for acquiring truthful research evidence and/or even as to comparing such evidence nearly impossible for non club/cult members (even as for that of supporting NASA, such as without those original Apollo negatives, absolutely no one can possibly support NASA). Your deity furthermore flat out lies about capable lunar resolution via Earth based SAR imaging, via shuttle based imaging and even about Hubble based imaging. Gee whiz folks, I guess that's all in my "mad" imagination as well and guess what, there's even more such crap in my supposedly "mad" head, like those UV laser "death~ray" capable cannons (we're talking semi-portable neutron bomb like laser beams) as laser cannons that were not exactly being planned for any planetary communications or other worthwhile humanitarian aspect.
Unlike yourself, I'm certainly not the "all knowing" expert(s) that you are (I've never claimed being such, that's why all the questions and subsequent mistakes from my limited research) but, in addition to many other abilities, I do in fact have a great deal of first hand photographic knowledge and experience in imaging and subsequent observational talents. Perhaps that's because I still have damn good eyes and, as such connected to a brain portion that's not been implanted or infected by any NASA/NSA/DoD Borg hive.
Obviously my critics are so absolutely right about me because, they've all managed to demonstrate this by their showing others and myself their imaging proof, their backup support and/or observational expertise and references taken from those many qualified SAR images of similar artificial looking items, many as from equal or better Earth SAR imaging, so that such image examples could easily be directly inspected, so that there is absolutely no question whatsoever as to their being entirely natural formations that merely happen to look artificial. I've posted such observational references (absolutely every one) and, I've offered on countless occasions to keep posting such references within my URL pages.
OOPS again; I must be totally "mad" because, I made another mistake and/or I just lied a whole bunch (as for the part about posting the images from and as supporting my critics, just that there is a wee bit of a problem because, there have not been any), as there in fact have been "NO" such qualified examples submitted by my critics, not even one out of the tens of thousands of prime Earth SAR images, let alone any from other planets nor moons and, certainly nothing whatsoever worthy as acquired from Mars. Certainly those piss poor Apollo lunar surface photos are of no qualified use whatsoever (as for whatever proof validation, we don't even have the essential access to those original negatives, all of which should have been thermally [+/-250 degrees] stressed as well as thoroughly (0.1 to 1.0Sv) radiated, especially of those from Apollo-16 and, we still have no official nor independent PR flight records whatsoever of any controlled 1/6th gravity lunar lander test flights). So, without such fundamental examples (we are back to our talking about observational interpretations of better then photo like images here), how can anyone so easily reject my interpretations of the Venus images without their offing one example of their critical about everything logic support, as to counteracting that which I've stipulated, that a few of the Magellan images contain a rather substantial number of very artificial looking attributes (least such not otherwise recorded by any sense of definition of their being "artificial" as compared to their being anything so natural).
Perhaps instead of my continually pointing out the more creative and complex or sophisticated artificial content issues (as there are so many), let alone the entirely rational community like infrastructure associated, how about just applying your mentality and supposedly superior expertise upon examining but one of the most insignificant of such potentially artificial issues. Certainly this minimal focused challenge can become worth your while, like reviewing the Venus suspension or whatever type of big ass bridge consideration and, if this bridge is somehow so damn natural, then I'm certain the entire body of experts will concur by their having an equal if not considerable multitude of supporting observational examples of such images and, best of all, your name will go down in history as defeating my entirely incorrect interpretation and, perhaps more so as to correcting my grammar and syntax. I'll even bet NASA would fork over a million bucks (cash) if you or anyone could do this for them.
In spite of all the E-flak, I do somehow manage to keep improving upon my grammar, syntax and, I do believe I'm even doing a whole lot better with my punctuation. Certain critics have caught a few math and word errors and, for the most part I given them credit for doing such. However, I've corrected upon far more content and math mistakes others have not managed to catch (shows how smart I am and how pathetically slow on the take others are). As exactly how anyone's grammar, syntax, punctuation or even math affects the original observational discovery, I'm at a total loss, as I simply couldn't agree more that I'm entirely mad (so what's all the fuss about?). But then I'm not so much mad mad, as I am mad about the GUTH Venus opportunities being ignored, as even more so about what the greater body of cult/Borg servants has apparently done to humanity and is yet willing to do. I'm guessing that 9/11 is just the tip of the iceberg(s) and, those Taliban al-Qaida may soon need to step aside, for letting our Borg NASA/NSA/DoD troopers get by so that they can further irritate the living hell out of Iraq.
Soon, I should hope, other nations not so implicated in such a grand series of lethal ruse layers, as these other nations are going to have an open book and their rights and entitlements as to advancing in spite of what America wishes (like many countries, obviously those smarter then America, already have accomplished far greater numbers of seemingly better quality and thereby safer nuclear reactors and, the likes of China and ESA are clearly advancing upon their space research, in spite of our wishes and placing critical knowledge on that "need to know" basis). That future, unfortunately for NASA, includes a number of lunar surface expeditions and of eventual stations being established and, this opportunity will soon include components of communicating with other planets, like Venus.
Let us compare upon a few values of grammar, syntax and punctuation against outright intentional deception, lying and disinformation;
I do believe, my unintentional errors are just that, unless as you say, I'm entirely mad and that I'm only doing such intentionally, just in order to piss you off, in which case I'm not the sort of mad you've been thinking of. As opposed to the status quo of outright blatant disinformation and lying on behalf of the "status quo"; let us say we compare these issues upon a scale of 0 to 10. Seems that my limitations rank somewhat at the bottom and, lying is perhaps more likely a solid 10+ (especially if that lying has anything whatsoever to do with hidden agendas, disinformation and subsequent wrongful death issues). I'll admit, my story line (at least according to my critics) needs some polish and, for that of my not delivering a good concise chapter that's essentially perfect by every known standard, perhaps I should receive low marks, after all, according to my best critics which seem to have nothing whatsoever other to work with, I am "mad" as you say.
How my message delivery impacts "truth" is only unfortunate for those not smart enough as to figure things out in the first place, but then as my critics on behalf of NASA/NSA/DoD insisted, you're supposedly smarter then all of hell, and as such, since my inadequate delivery alters not the observational facts of there being a significant number of artificial worthy attributes, nor of any eventual outcome, so, as most of my esteemed critics go, if you're so damn smart, obviously you should have been able to figure out what I was driving at, as of 20+ months ago and counting (unlike many of my opponents, my name and address was always real and my phone number was certainly for real and, up until all this happened, the NSA/DoD was not even easedroping, so there was even little chance of your violating "nondisclosure" cult bylaws). Even more so to the point, if you're so damn smart (as you claim being), you should have been capable of accomplishing all this discovery as of 13 years ago. So, what's been your pathetic excuse?
As I stated all this off nearly two years ago and, repeated myself upon many occasions; I was and I'm still looking for a little positive encouragement and, naturally of whatever reinforcement incentives that could focus others upon what I perceived as worthy and of subsequent humanitarian goals (highly obtainable at that), as much understanding was beyond my observational expertise and associated technology. Initially I had no ulterior motives nor intentions of my having to control or even dominate the entire spectrum of such opportunities, however, my undying critics certainly gave me the additional time and enough motivational frustration as to boot my remaining intelligence into further action, as to uncover why all the fuss over something that's purely representing positives for everyone involved, as I truly felt (mistakenly as it turns out) that this discovery (we're talking pre .com as well as 9/11) could represent enough good news for a change and, of obtainable worthy goals at that, so much so as to that of potentially compensating for whatever past NASA deeds gone bad and, that more so this opportunity could help pay for a number of restitutions as well as a whole lot more. I am now believing that I've way underestimated the impack of our infamous past, as I once thought a few hundred billions, perhaps even a trillion or so dollars might cover the class actions against the US government. I am only to guess, my figures are way low.
Being a Reverse Critic (just for the fun of it).
Basically, I just love a good critic. Looking at the life long achievements of a critic and you'll soon discover not much of anything except a whole lot of disruption and disillusionment, generally not of one achievement worthy of humanity. Yet we seem to always have more then our fair share of those that seldom if ever offer their solutions, nor do they bolster behind anyone else's "positive" ideals (especially if it's not their idea), just being thoroughly "negative" all the way to their grave, your grave as well if at all possible.
How about letting me be the critic this time around. These few analogies are numbered, however, not as such in any rational train of thought, as perhaps you could just as well start at the bottom and work your way up.
1) If one wanted to become the best/ultimate critic around; what might be the best ulterior motive(s), as for discrediting upon something you initially know nothing about?
2) If you were to write a 100 page research paper and, if I were to read only the first paragraph and then skip through all the rest, so as to look at whatever picture; would I be as equally if not more so qualified as to discredit upon your research?
3) If as a critic, I had no observational support documentation whatsoever, no observational comparisons of SAR images acquired at similar perspective and resolutions as for honestly judging upon such supposedly natural geological attributes, as for confirming those of Venus are being entirely natural; would I still be qualified to discredit another research effort that is calling such highly unusual patterns as being most likely artificial?
4) If I had no actual aerial photography experience, owned no format cameras, did not even accomplish my own developing, enlarging and printing, plus having no technical nor electronic expertise with radar (SAR) imaging equipment nor that of digital enlarging; could I still challenge whatever I wanted and, without my having to submit one sinking example of purely natural formations looking just as complex and sophisticated as if they were artificial?
5) If you had researched as to uncover various "positive" considerations for supporting "life NOT as we know it", such as taking into account all of the essential energy considerations which can effectively make nearly any environment livable (examples: submarines and ISS are each good examples of technology overcoming their environments); Could I simply disregard everything upon the basis that I personally do not know of any life which could manage under such conditions nor, because I further elect to disapprove of any technology applications on the basis that such would require intelligence beyond and/or in place of what we currently understand?
6) If your high tech scuba diver can simply wear a specialized suit, along with sufficient weights and whatever required technology as for compensating buoyancy as well as accommodating atmospheric support; Can I simply disregard what the enormous buoyancy factors of what 96% CO2 at 75+ bar offers?
(especially if the protective body suit or just the sufficiently evolved body itself were somehow layered in H2 voids and/or containing micro spheres/cells of H2, then additionally as having that 81% gravity factor, which if everything combined could potentially achieve positive buoyancy, thus if such a body suit occupant were a featherweight, auxiliary weights might even be required in order to safely walk in such a dense CO2 environment).
7) If your discovery report further indicated that it is entirely possible to construct a vertical venturi wind tunnel and, outfit that contraption with an appropriate power turbine; could I disregard those claims simply because I've never heard of such an invention and, even though as for Earth's application there's simply no way of ever achieving such pressure differentials, other then by vertical ocean differentials and thereby currents?
8) If your study indicated that the potential as for applying CO2-->CO/O2 was essentially a done deal and, that a substantial natural energy resource was at hand; might I further disregard and/or criticise that one to death on the grounds that again, I personally know nothing whatsoever about such technology, therefore it doesn't exist and can't otherwise be applied?
9) If within your research/report, you had always been requesting of others to submit whatever (good or bad) as for new, better or more correct ideas or, merely as to be providing ongoing corrective (more accurate) information and formulas that are simply more truthful then not; might I criticise your research for not doing virtually everything (100% all phases) of the research so that others an myself could just sit back and pick away at whatever mistakes you've inadvertently made, just so that I could be considered a whole lot smarter and simply yourself (without ever submitting a damn thing)?
10) If within that report of your's, there were a number of references as to other's opposing your work, as without their submitting one damn thing that merits their stance against what your research is proposing; can I hold that against you for merely returning the favor onto those doing their level best (mostly funded and orchestrated by NASA/NSA/DoD as for doing so) as to discrediting your research?
11) In general; can I simply disregard upon any further requirements as for my negative stance, such as my not having to submit one damn thing that upholds whatever the logic be, which I'll electively hold against your research?
12) Taking for an example: Focusing upon what your research/report has that claiming as being most likely artificial, as for selecting an item that's representing one of the least complicated attributes to be considered from out of a couple of dozen others, yet clearly accomplishing what no such natural formation has ever before accomplished, namely providing a substantial bridge that's spanning a fairly respectable canyon or rille; is it OK (simply because there are variables regarding imaging pixel size) as to nullify and/or replace that bridge analogy with that of being a very large banana or whatever else that's natural, thus becoming something that's entirely natural, even though I'm unable to identify the much larger banana tree as the source of that gigantic banana nor of the giant ape that placed such a banana across what I'm calling a simple lava erosion ditch having only purely natural attributes associated?
13) As a second example: Say if your research uncovered an entirely new planet residing outside of our solar system, one that was worthy of hosting life because all the spectrums and associated long-range measurements indicated the presents of an atmosphere and planetary content that was similar to Earth, yet because the best possible image of this new plant (being that it's hundreds if not thousands of light years away) was a mere sub pixel worth; can I then discredit everything your research has accomplished simply because you can't show anyone recognizable planetary features that represents anything the least bit habitable?
14) As a third example: If the size (pixel relationships) of whatever your discovery offers is suggesting something that may look artificial but is simply the wrong size (too big) to fit known or accepted Earthly examples; can I utilize the mere fact the your artificial attributes are either too big and/or too small, as to further discredit every aspect of your research (even though there are so many other considerations along with rational infrastructure to boot)?
15) In place of supporting my criticisms upon your research, is it not entirely acceptable that I can demand from your research the sort of "extraordinary proof", by which I myself do not have to support as for my "anti-everything" stance and/or as even for my pro-NASA support of those Apollo missions?
16) If I can discover a mathematical, syntax or even an honest dyslexic error; Apparently I can discredit your research based upon the fact alone and, that I was at least smart enough to catch those errors, yet somehow entirely unable to locate and read about the various other discovery qualifications as well as those pages and paragraphs as for my comprehending your expertise?
In other words; as according to the astronomy and sciences "critic's oath", as for being certified NASA wizard, apparently that person is entitled as to being as critical (negative) about absolutely anything and everything, all without having any actual observational expertise, without even a valid observational SAR image data base supposedly upholding that absolutely every pixel pattern (no matters how odd or complex) as those depicted within "GUTH Venus", as being purely natural, even though all others nor I can't seem to produce one other such image of any known natural formation that comes even close to being equal and/or better in complexity, nor as to revealing attributes which in order for those to have been naturally formed must also have been gravity defying, tectonic indifferent as well as erosion eluding. If all of this official code of acceptable criticising conduct is "OK" by your sworn club standards, then perhaps those Magellan images are not even those of Venus, just like those Apollo missions photos were perhaps not taken upon any asphalt lunar surface because, as such photographic illusions go, there's but one and only one possible explanation and, that one's been locked up and the key thrown away decades ago (unless you expect others to be asking the bloated fox about those missing chickens and perhaps your cat about why all the feathers and no birdy).
If a good trial prosecuting attorney can't prove it ever happened, just like with O.J. and apparently those Apollo missions, then it obviously didn't happen. The same must go for anything artificial verses natural geology, as if you can't prove something exist (natural or artificial), then according to the "status quo" it simply doesn't exist (period!). Now that I'll certainly buy, that Venus does not exist because, not only were there purely natural surroundings of smaller features (side to side, all around, even above and below that bridge) but, to prove my point, just try getting a recent image lock upon Venus these days and, lo and behold, there's no Venus in sight. So, as "extraordinary proof" goes, as far as those Magellan images are concerned and, of anything related to the recent opportunities of viewing upon Venus, that planet simply no longer exist. Such a deal.
As within astronomy, if guessing is to be allowed, such as our administration (specifically NSA/DoD) guessing that by their having no cost restraints whatsoever, one could fool the world into believing almost anything and, further guessing that our NASA could be promoted first as a puppet and then as a viable cloak for all sorts of hidden agendas, including but not limited to those "Apollo missions", such as the "USS LIBERTY" fiasco and so on. If those truly unique Apollo lunar images are to be allowed into evidence without their original negatives and without any of those incorporating a solitary geological/stellar reference, then perhaps those other images of a somewhat truly "extraordinary" photographic "truth" format, such as what SAR delivers along with it's original digital file, perhaps those images should become more then adequate if not vastly superior.
October/November; Venus (especially November 4th and 5th) should be (that is if Lord NASA will allow it to even exist anymore) no closer then 6+ degrees south of the sun at nearest junction of 0.27 AU, that's something like within 105 times as far away as our moon, thereby seriously big and almost obnoxiously in the way of viewing other stuff. Yet there's still officially no Venus in sight and, apparently no future plans by NASA as for finding it (perhaps never). Instead of focusing upon humanly obtainable goals (not that we ever need to actually land on Venus, especially if it's currently occupied), it's off to retrieving those potentially lethal Mars microbes (for a mere few hundred billions and, that's if nothing goes terribly wrong), then otherwise onto deeper space and towards focusing upon those humanly unobtainable goals.
Some day I sincerely hope to meet up with all of you Borgs, as perhaps at a critic's roast, but not so much as having anything as to roasting away at my efforts, better as to be seriously roasting your Borg butts. Others and I may be certain as to bring along a few class actions, just to keep the mood going. Perhaps this will be a darn good time (if you haven't already) to get your hands on those well utilized ENRON/Andersen shredders.
Conceivably GASA is not such a bad restart or "reset" idea after all. Instead of the status quo of NASA cloaking for their true boss NSA/DoD, how about "Global ASA" or better yet is, how about "Guth ASA". Now GASA is starting to have a darn nice ring to it.
If you are a darn good story writer (almost anything is going to be likely better then myself); I'm interested in seeing all this put to music (sort of speak), in such a manner that the greater public gets a nasty taste of what it's like being on the receiving end of so much officially sanctioned E-Flak and/or official avoidance (same thing). This research should rightfully involve JFK, as battles are usually fought over power and/or these days energy and money and of little else. This is where JFK started something that was not likely to turn out as hoped for and, there were certainly a fair number of available hawks just waiting for this sort of opportunity, with the obvious intentional exclusions of anyone having second thoughts of moral issues (I liked Burt Lancaster in the movie "Executive Action" and, that performance didn't even include the cold-war Apollo factors and, just maybe that was of no accident).