DISINFORMATION R US

If you can't tell the truth, at least tell them what it is you want them to believe. Apparently, most Americans are so poorly educated that they will believe anything our government states. My, isn't life simple.

Once again into those fires of NASA; I've been having to search about the internet and, I seem to keep uncovering various layers of somewhat useful disinformation (not always having to do with the planet Venus). This time it has mostly to do with our SAR imaging resolution, towards supporting of the required "extraordinary" and subsequent image interpretation capabilities and otherwise, is having somewhat lessor if anything directly to do with that Apollo ruse (at least that's what I set out to accomplish).

Not that this issue is by itself any holy grail discovery but, the latest point(s) of interest which I've uncovered (I'm certain that many others already have privately known this), that which is worthy of understanding NASA's ability to fundamentally "lie" withhout flinching, is regarding their continuing disinformation as to our image gathering via SAR technology (Earth based as well as super-mega shuttle bay super-duper-spy NSA format).

From looking over the NASA documentation as related to such SAR imaging of Earth, as acquired from shuttle spy missions and, as according to their public disinformation, we have the ability to resolve imaging of around 30 meters, however, of the much lessor EOS project (applying significantly lessor capable SAR technology) seems to be reporting their SAR imaging at 18 meters and yet, that of another independent international source, based also upon NASA's shuttle SAR true capability, as utilizing that very same 3.7 by 12 meter antenna along with that 60 meter receiving mast, has been documenting their results at 1.5 meter resolution.

That raw 1.5 meter verses a reported 30 meter resolution represents an offal lot of discrepancy. So I've gone back into my very own CAD engineering capabilities, as to see for myself. How hard can that be? (for myself, not all that difficult).

Here is what I discovered about "shuttle bay SAR imaging";
Your typical shuttle based SAR imaging capability, if to be utilizing that 200' (60 meter) receiving mast, can most certainly obtain 1.535 meter resolution based upon the mission altitude of 225km and utilizing a 0.2 aperture. With such a long receiving mast, the 0.2 aperture delivers the SAR targeting swath onto a 17.7mm X 17.7mm sensor area comprised of 512x512 pixel arrangement (the actual target area may have been limited to 16x16mm). Applying a certified photo enlargement process of 10X pushes this raw digital SAR information representing 1.535 meters, as to becoming an entirely better usable resolution, as a boost all the way down to 0.15 meters and, that's smoking.

Obviously such SAR capability (under NSA and not NASA control) is potentially able to accommodate the equivalent of a 0.1 aperture, as well as that of sufficient receiving image area to apply an upgrade of hosting a much tighter 1024x1024 SAR sensor situated within such a imaging target zone of roughly 8.86mm x 8.86mm. In which instance we are talking about obtaining a 0.38 meter resolution (and that's raw, without the certified benefit of further digital resampling which can easily push a ten fold factor into the equation, thus 0.038 meter or 1.5 inch usable resolution). Admittedly all this data crunching and massive digital resampling could pull a CRAY to it's knees, but they have several of these capable computers just sitting around waiting for something really juicy to do, so image processing is simply not a factor unless they're busy using these computers for downloading their quota of live smut.

This SAR capability is simply no longer rocket science, just representing a whole lot of applied math and introducing greater SAR power levels in order to achieve the goal. Always smaller and obviously higher density as well as more sensitive receiving chips are coming off the line as we speak. The original 200 watt Magellan package with it's SAR 240 X 240 pixel sensor would not be used for toilet paper these days, yet it obtained as tight as 10 meter resolution while at it's least altitude. Unfortunately, the Magellan's lower orbit opportunity was short lived because of the elliptical format of the mission, where each orbit ranged from 275km out to 2400km and, where the more interesting or worthy targets simply did not happen to fall within this narrow window of 10 meter opportunities, therefore, the typical or average resolution of 75 meters was likely established so that mapping could be fixed at something standard (you obviously can't establish mapping results based upon the raw imaging if your resolution has a continually variable 8.7:1 mapping ratio, so you pick a number and stick with it).

Unfortunate for NASA, but obviously that advantageous for my "GUTH Venus" discovery, besides their never commissioning a single effort towards identifying anything artificial on Venus, NASA apparently never once applied digital photo resampling onto those Magellan images, thereby lost the opportunity to survey at 5 times better then the raw SAR imaging (potentially 10 fold enlargements or certified magnification could have been applied). Their ongoing denials that they have done nothing wrong and therefore missed no such discovery and, furthermore, have recently supported these truths by reaffirming that there is simply "nothing whatsoever to see", is total nonsense and, obviously that which is crumbling all about and throughout their prestigious archives of documentation.

In addition; my counter retaliation in order to merely obtain the fundamental realization from others, that I have uncovered something worthy as being sufficiently identified as most likely artificial, has become a thorn of sorts, especially when my secondary motive in research efforts has uncovered and supports that Earth based imaging, as sourced from the mega-watt Arecibo SAR Observatory, along with that combined of our VLA capabilities, has for nearly a decade (perhaps longer) been capable of resolving 1.5 raw imaging resolution of our moon. Naturally NASA can not bring themselves to openly supporting this contension (for obvious reasons) and, will likely fight this issue to their death. Unfortunately, it's only too true, that NASA has had access to such capable resolution for that of re-identifying each and every remains of those Apollo missions and, along with some certified digital enlargements that could further deliver this imaging capability down to a sufficiently true (believable) 0.15 meters.

Sorry again folks; if I've somehow indicated that NASA has become or has always been somewhat less then honest about their past involvements and achievements and, if I've indicated that certain ulterior motives have been those created as a result of deeply rooted NSA/DoD agendas (like the cold-war). Besides promoting their cold-war agendas and that of simply provoking others, NASA has been having to drain our limited resources and thereby inflicting unnecessary opposition against otherwise valid as well as humanitarian research and otherwise easily obtainable exploration goals. Perhaps I should be advising you and then also my opposition, as to basically re-explain in layman terms, all about the finer points of that potentially lethal NASA "nondisclosure policy" and, why that policy has been so applied as to supposedly non-NSA/DoD agendas and, for whom's benefit has this been intended.

As far as anything dealing with Earth imaging resolution; I have no problem with our NSA maintaining a privet capability of achieving a 10 fold advantage over that of what the public ever needs to see. However, towards other planetary imaging, such as a Magellen-II mission, should obviously not be so restricted. Like the imaging of those specific Apollo landing sites, the "GUTH Venus" site is sufficiently specific, so that we need not have to plan upon re-mapping the entire planet, at least not at first. Sending a shuttle like SAR capability off to Venus is something well within our ability, as the technology obviously has existed for years, with very little if any new tax dollars would be required (especially as compared to the planned mission(s) for that of retrieving those lethal Mars microbes, at an overall cost exceeding 250 billion and, at that we are down the road by at least another decade of what I see as a total waste of time, talents and obviously invaluable resources badly needed towards our fully recovering from 9/11).

As opposed to those truly flaky Apollo missions, "GUTH Venus" has long been a fully valid discovery for well over a year (try 16 months and counting), as further backed by sufficient "extraordinary" SAR imaging proof, that which supports that we easily have obtainable as well as highly worthy goals, those potentially as becoming commercially/enterprise valuable as well as humanitarian based (thereby obviously I'm excluding NSA/DoD agendas, that is of course, if we can somehow manage to not provoke those surviving souls on Venus from retaliation, simply because we are acting like such pagan fools again).

If on the other hand, if what you have been focusing upon is perfect spelling and then expecting extremely high documentation format standards, such as from those infamous Apollo missions, then absolutely NASA and their NSA/DoD partners in crime is where all of that resides. The fact that their so called "standards" may offer little if anything whatsoever resembling "extraordinary proof", as from within many of those highly polished official looking documents, is something else.

Back to the very top: "@GUTH Venus"

Copyright © 2000/2002 - Brad E. Guth
All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: Brad Guth - Brad Guth