I don't mean to be mean about all this confrontation over what's so natural and of what I'm insisting is hardly that of anything so natural, at least by the knowledge of this village idiot there seems more than a little something to look at, but then also by the entire collective of what's against any notion of other life, as even though 99+% of Earth's surface remains quite natural, oddly they too can't seem to substantiate even upon what's supposedly so natural about Venus, at least not by any standard better than I can impose the possibility of other life as based upon a relatively small portion or specific areas of what I've viewed upon as for being most likely loaded with artificial content. It would seem rather simple should the opposition be all that correct, to point towards any number of SAR imaged terrain of some other plant (including Earth), as for identifying very artificial looking attributes that have been confirmed as being entirely natural.
I seem lately to being pulled off track from the issue of simply relocating ISS to Venus L2 (VL2), where there's a good deal of radiation to contend with, but apparently not nearly as much as the opposition is claiming, as otherwise someone is going to have to thoroughly re-explain how an entire Apollo mission (including EVAs) could average but 35 mrem/day, especially when a shuttle mission receives 64 mrem/half day or 128 mrem per 24 hours of solar exposure (well below the Van Allen zone of death and no EVAs involved).
I seem to also be concurring with many others that, along with sufficient evolution and of some well motivated abilities to survive, other life may have managed to surpass our previously low expectations on Mars as well as for Venus. Though somewhat like all the opposition against Mars (myself included), I seem to be running seriously amuck with the sorts of children at many pro-NASA populated discussion forums, somewhat like the following kind Borg that's so convinced he can see those WMDs, but otherwise can't see a damn thing that's potentially artificial nor energy worthy about Venus, even though as compared to anything Mars, at least Venus offers all sorts of natural energy alternatives (that thick and dense atmosphere with all of it's thermal and pressure differential per km should be rather obvious), as well as for resolving a fairly good radiation shield by way of the same terrifically thick and dense atmosphere, that's also responsible for keeping megatonnes of those clouds buoyant.
It seems that I keep getting, or at least can't avoid getting myself into a tiff with these absolute "all knowing" ultra geology sorts, of even astrophysics types that simply either can't see a damn thing without having an expensive (taxpayer funded) telescope shoved up their you know what, or because they keep referring to their invisible observational references of their justifying upon everything on Venus as being absolutely natural, as in the same manner warlord Bush keeps referring to all those WMDs.
I swear; as for being right here on Earth, if there were to be an Olympic class sand sculpturing contest held on a very sandy beach, or that of an ice sculpturing and/or snow castle building contest going on where there's obviously lots of snow everywhere, I swear to God, these same fools apposing absolutely anything Venus would only see sand or ice or snow, no matters how unusually and thereby artificially sculptured things get, as somehow even size becomes a detriment to their form of truth, where the bigger and more out of place those sculptures get, apparently the less likely they're created by intelligent other forms of life.
> From: George William Herbert;
> I will say these two points very simply:
> 1) You have to provide scientific grade evidence of your
> claim that any of these features are artificial in order
> to proceed with making any further claims with any
No Sir/Lord George;
I actually only have to show with reasonable cause that these items of interest are not natural, as what in hell is left.
> 2) You appear to have about 1% of the required understanding
> of SAR, image interpretation, and the scientific method
> needed to formulate and present an argument of scientific
> grade evidence that those are artificial structures.
I honestly believe I have acquired more first hand radar imaging as well as photographic expertise than your entire staff of braille image interpreters that's been looking for those WMDs. I also understand of what is a rock, a mountain, a rille or canyon, as well as for what's being soil or fluid like as represented by SAR, and of what's a secondary erosion pattern and that of what something actively flowing looks like. I still know the difference between a rugged mountainous sequence of rock formations and that of an intentionally smooth looking tarmac (having sub-service bays no less and rounded corners no less, possibly even equipment on deck). I've also seen loads of bridges and photographed them from the air, so that I can tell the difference between a rille or of some other erosion wrinkle, over that of a substantially spanning bridge (obviously you can't, as your white cane simply isn't picking anything up, so perhaps you should ask your dog).
How's that for my being scientifically proper, up to snuff and all?
I also happen to know, that out of all the photographic processes, there's absolutely nothing that beats SAR as far as eliminating doubt and offering the utmost of confidence there is. Obviously our resident expert/critic (George William Herbert) would rather preemptively disqualify if it's SAR, or perhaps just disqualify for the sheer hell of it. Perhaps his Borg collective is signaling "danger" "danger", "a unrecoverable fault is about to occur".
Here's some additionally proper scientific protocol; Why don't you show me yours and then, I'll show you mine. In other words "put up or shut up", as in addition to my 50+ years experience, since the discovery I've already applied and/or wasted another couple of years worth on my part looking for anything remotely similar on Earth (as I believe hundreds of others have accomplished the same task, presumably that's including the likes of yourself having done so as well) but, lo and behold, of what comes even remotely close is in fact been represented as artificial as all get out, as in man made. Thus perhaps we're talking of lizard or scorpion made if it's situated on Venus.
As observationology goes; being able to determine upon what something is by reasonable use of ones' sight, along with reasonable likelihood to what's so familiar, is hardly rocket science or even requiring of the "all knowing" expertise of geology or even physics, as a tree is a tree, as is a building a building as is a bridge spanning 1+km not of something that's so natural, especially if it's associated with a road that offers excavations and multiple rectangular (side by side) quarry sites along its' path, not to mention a rather intentional switch-back accomplishment in order to continue making grade as it circumvents a relatively rugged mountainous terrain.
Perhaps all one needs is a 1% understanding of SAR imaging, as even though critic George seems to indicate as knowing all there is to know and yet, even he can't seem to see a damn thing that isn't entirely natural, while on the very same basis, he remains unable to offer one other Earthly example of such supposedly natural attributes appearing as looking so community like. At this point, I might actually accept one of Georges' facial wrinkles as for being entirely natural, magnified a hundred thousand times and we may have that bridge looking item, except offering no distinctive channel/canyon continuation underneath, as well as no nearby quarry sites and of certainly no associated road nor township, unless of course he's got some form of microbial skin disorder going on.
BTW; there's nothing of SAR understanding required of the raw GIF image file format, unless you're an idiot and can't even tell which way is up. Obviously in this case of what's 8-bit contrast has nothing whatsoever to do with color, but you already knew that because you're so special. You probably even know all about the 43 degree view perspective and of the 4-looks per pixel, as well as how SAR imaging affords insight into the composition of what it's imaging, but since you've stipulated that I only know of 1% about SAR, now I curious as to what the other 99% is all about (is it perchance having to do with detecting colors, is it animation related, or is it the fact that there's no lens distortion nor related refractions, or is it the fact that unlike those seriously doubtful Apollo mission pictures, that SAR simply can't be doctored without easily being detected), at least NASA didn't have to bother eliminating those pesky vibrant stars as were involved in the Apollo ruse.
How totally pathetic that such critics consider themselves as even humans, as to not respectfully recognize the survival abilities of others, to not realize the positive implications, to otherwise ignore upon the blatant evidence before them is sort of scientifically sacrilegious if not downright typically American rude.
On behalf of my critics, I'll have to concur that the vast majority of what's on the surface of Venus is loads of hot rock, or a very crusty soil remainder of said rock and otherwise of volcanic or mud like flows. Lets say 99.999% of Venus is absolutely as natural and as hot and nasty as it gets. Well folks, first of all, Venus wasn't always so hot and nasty and, seems we have a slight remaining problem of what to do about classifying that other 0.001% of that very same Venus rock, of which I believe someone or something decided to go through all the trouble of carving it out, then transporting and subsequently constructing a fairly good number of unusually functional items, of relatively large scale items no less, those seemingly having nothing in common with mother or father nature, at least not by any of Earth's geology standards, nor are there some new laws of physics which can explain away the complex community that's offering some rather significant as well as rational infrastructure, forming a perfectly understandable logic for surviving on Venus.
Good grief all mighty; how pathetically obvious does this one have to get?
Now friends and foe; if you in fact have other observational images (preferably of SAR format because that's by far the most reliable, least distorting and entirely unaffected by illumination or not), as I'll accept and I'll post those links (giving yourself the fullest of credits) so that all can see exactly whatever it is that qualifies upon your best educated idea of what creative common rock and lava flow can accomplish.
These are a few of the ongoing papers; some offer facts while others tend to blend the capabilities of known science and physics into the picture, so as to evaluate upon various educated estimates or guesses and "what ifs".
and there's certainly lots more where these came from (their dyslexic content is another bonus).
BTW; I've never been so arrogant as to insist these items of interest aren't remains, or as in still alive and kicking, as there's certainly room for a little give and take, I'm only remaining arrogant about their not being so freaking natural. However, it seems rather unlikely that so much would have been left out in the open as abandoned instead of being sheltered because, it's obviously become humanly hot and nasty on Venus.
The sort of statement offered by George William Herbert; "What you are claiming is a bridge, is a wrinkle in the rille. There is zero evidence in that SAR data to suggest that it's in fact a bridge" is just another perfect example of the other side not putting up a damn thing in the way of offering another image substantiating their anti-everything point of view. Rille wrinkle my ass; show me another rille of similar size or larger having such an unobstructed wrinkle, I'll even accept a canyon wrinkle or any damn wrinkle having such depth, such mass, such openness below and not to mention such span.
As an analogy or two; what can anyone possibly have to say that'll convince the likes of George Herbert, that of such enormous sand and ice sculptures are more than just sand and ice, or that the Pope hates Cathars literally to death and that warlord Bush isn't worth squat. It seems as though of highly sculptured anything as well as millions of bodies laying directly at their feet are not of sufficient clues by the esteemed standards of George Herbert, to justify even the possibility that we're still being snookered by the best.
Perhaps the lingering other question is of what's pertaining to our dealing with space radiation, as for the ISS being relocated to Venus L2 (VL2) is perhaps a non-issue, as apparently this can be safely put aside by way of taking those 35 mrem/day TBI dosage factors of those infamous Apollo missions which included extensive EVAs, where some of those missions were even less than 35 mrem/day, though somewhat oddly and of nearly every other modern recording and re-calculation of similar daily exposures within a similar shielded craft and of mission EVA exposures is more than a hundred fold greater (I re-calculated 140 times greater), which is still not lethal as long as you've got banked bone marrow standing by.
BTW; of the 64 mrem/day being reported as a typical shuttle mission, of the cruising altitude of under 250 miles (that's roughly a third of the way before you're getting yourself sort of microwave cooked within just the initial Van Allen zone of death) and, besides that rather significant advantage of being magnetically shielded and as nowhere near that radiated death zone, remember that the shuttles are spending nearly half of their daily flight as otherwise fully shielded from the sun by Earth itself, not even an option for the greater portion of those Apollo mission exposures and still, as being compared to Apollo, those shuttle missions as such were taking in twice the daily Apollo dosage, which most certainly seems a little more than odd.