Illumination Zones Where They Should and Perhaps Should Not Be

Apollo hot spots are not so good, though Venus offers a hot/illumination spot with energy and photons to burn.

(by; Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA    updated: May 14, 2004)

Venus Hot Spots are What they are

(artificial and thereby altogether acceptable, as opposed to the follow lead story)

Although this following report is suggesting a factor of lightning as the sole cause of the "ashen light", there's no apparent physics as to backing up the natural method of such energy being created and/or sustained for the duration of 30/sec and as focused and/or of the spectrum as the observed, as such illuminations having been recorded have been of considerably greater than a few seconds, and besides all of that, of those darn Venus clouds (unlike clouds of Earth) are quite electrolytic (electron conductive) and I believe unlikely to build any hot-spot of sufficient potential and duration of discharge. http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/evidence/


About that Apollo-11 snapshot of containing two astronauts with Earth clearly depicted within their visors at perhaps 5+ degrees off the horizon", whereas this isn't the one and only nor even the best example of their photographically recorded physics running amuck, although if we stuck with it and further analyzed just this image as to what it's worth, it's certainly sufficient as for conveying some of the finer points of arguments that those Apollo missions weren't exactly of the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help their snookered God.

thumnail of Doble11.jpg 2X of the Doble11 visor

Many thanks to Mr. Nullte "Apollo Grasshopper" of the NASA Apollohoax borg cult fan club, as we now seem have an official disclosure, by way of their own confirmation as to the absolute fact that our NASA approved of modifying and accomplished such modifications upon otherwise supposedly perfectly good Apollo images, thereby masterfully demonstrating that whenever there was a need to impress there was in fact a hidden process applied, so as to hype and/or snooker our Senate, Congress as well as the tax paying public, and damn good they were about accomplishing such workmanship, as up until this "Apollo Grasshopper" gave us his skinny, other Borgs of his own pro-Apollo cult hadn't actually realized upon this specific photographic ruse. This nifty process obviously applies itself to many other images, whereas illumination factors are not correct, and/or Earth was added in as being depicted consistently incorrect with relationship to the lunar horizon, as well as others indicating as having Earth too small for the camera lens ratio and of the well known distance of Earth from the moon. This talent of creating such modified internegatives was so good that there's absolutely no way of honest common folks ever knowing where this photographic modification effort was applied or not.

Prior, during and ever since the Apollo era, the technology had surely existed as to produce images involving one item superimposed over another. The latest evidence for this technology may as well come directly from the lions mouth http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/Doble11.JPG, as extracted directly from their very own chicken bloated fox that's been telling us few remaining chickens not to worry, that all is well and as good it should be within Club NASA, as otherwise some of us should have known for a matter of fact about Earth having been situated roughly 65 degrees above the true lunar horizon as viewed by those Apollo 11 astronauts. However, as within the reflection of the Apollo 11 astronauts' visors, mother Earth is clearly indicated as being perhaps less than five degrees above the horizon. Although besides this rather spectacular relocation of Earth, and not to overlook those rather obvious illumination hot-spot issues, and there's even more of an illumination spot as projected behind the camera, plus taking note of the highly reflective lunar surface index that's so easily compared to those 85% reflective moon suits, all of that is only further skewed along by the apparent lack of meteorites and their shards, all of which should have been of either lunar basalt like substance and/or of somewhat dark meteorite debris that should have been at least near the 11% average rather than of the 55+% as photographed.

I seem to recall my reading an old report of an individual that accidently opened the wrong door at one of the larger Apollo complex facilities, where he clearly saw astronauts in full moon suit and of a few props being photographed and otherwise movie filmed in front of a "blue screen", which at the time was the accepted and proven method of initially creating the sorts of overlay images for such a photographic modification process. Now I understand where some if not perhaps all of those "blue screened" images were utilized.

Well nice folks, and of actual humans like "earth orbit" posting at NASAs' Apollohoax.com; there's yet another wee bit of a nasty physics-101 toilet training problem because, not only was there never an announcement nor even a vague suggestion that anything artificial was ever applied and/or of anything removed from this nor upon any of those Apollo mission photos, and especially of this "Doble11.JPG" that was clearly a triple effort plus autographed and thereby re-certified as being absolutely authentic, as such this image of our astronaut(s) standing supposedly on our moon is the absolute word of their pagan God, as of this point in time being phony.

Even if one cares to suggest that their visors severely distorted this supposedly reflected image of Earth, which by the way is depicting such as a relatively large Earth as should have been reflected as for being so distorted into a smaller item by the curvature of their visor, as opposed to representing an even larger item if having been viewed/photographed directly (D.O.T. "OBJECTS IN MIRROR ARE CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR"), but also taking notice of a solar illumination angle that also couldn't possibly have illuminated upon their lunar environment as depicted within their own doctored image, at least not by the same source as what's supposedly illuminating mother Earth as being so clearly depicted within their visors, much less capable of the sun creating any such "hot-spot" projections, none the less the relocation of Earth is entirely a Physics impossibility that even Einsteins' quantum mechanics couldn't possibly justify, nor could their Einstein have made Earth appear as so unusually small within several other doctored Apollo images.

However, within the factory original (supposedly unaltered image from the NASA/Apollo archives: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5903.jpg If you think you can further explain upon the rather horrific amount of side illumination, and/or explain about the supposedly retro-reflective clumping moon dirt as Apollohoax "Bob B." and of his wizard "JayUtah" have stipulated as being the case, as there's clearly to be seen as yet another rather horrific hot-spot illumination captured in the visor, as well as for the foreground and background surrounding those two, or even of the original single astronaut, yet the remaining lunar terrain seems oddly somewhat non illuminated.

For a little further tit for tat on these two images (the before and after versions), plus a few other minor complications with their unproven lunar lander, check into the "gv-apollohoax.htm" page, and perhaps even check back into this document for future updates, as now there's absolutely no telling what's real and what's not of almost any of their Apollo images.

The other interesting fact that these two guys, or of just the one, in moon-suits are apparently standing nearly naked to the solar and cosmic influx, and thereby acquiring a reasonably tremendous dosage TBI/bath from nearly all angles of those secondary lunar created hard X-Rays, and fortunately without their never once having noticed nor being impacted by some lunar bound dust-bunny clocking itself in at 15+km/s, and otherwise they're most often surrounded by not 1% of the surface meteorite debris and shard remains of what's clearly existing as on Mars, whereas Mars offers a somewhat modus defence against such, plus atmospheric and geological erosion factor to boot, whereas this lunar void of such few meteorite remains has truly been another astonishing amount of ongoing space toilet potty training, not even physics-101 if there ever was.

Of course, these official and unofficial incest cloned Borgs that have been acting as their own orchestrated dog-wagging collective on behalf of defending their pagan God, by dog-wagging their butts off and otherwise placing spin upon every possible angle, such as their latest spin of their infamous clumping-moon-dirt as being retro-reflective in order to account for those spotty illuminations, these folks are oddly are one and the same individuals as those opposed to what other I've discovered of Venus, and/or of what I believe needs to be honestly accommodated upon our moon, and not all that surprisingly they're only further objecting to the notions of Sirius having anything whatsoever to do with Earths' history per evolutionary and/or geological cycles of our solar system, as in a way that would surely make Hitler proud and/or the likes of those Cathar exterminating Popes jump for joy.

As for the possibility of there being life on Venus, besides that based upon what all I've uncovered, of what's been included within GUTH Venus, here's yet another entirely independent but unusually illuminating perspective that I certainly had absolutely nothing to do with, of which either suggests that folks have been working behind our backs by way of secretly signaling Venus and thereby obtaining a reply, or that Venus has in fact been sending out packets of their own, of which we're acting too dumbfounded and thereby too snookered as to realise for what that represents. Either way this following is offered as an independent example of what's truth, meanwhile there's just more of the same old cold-war mentality and total lack of morals that exist within NASA, of their avoiding such truth at all cost, of which our cloak and dagger government clearly stands for and cultivates upon creating disinformation at every possible opportunity.

2X of heath4.jpg indicating illumination zone as of 2001 February 23, 18.05 UT

http://www.julianbaum.co.uk/BAA_MV/MVVenus.html
Going by this page link containing multiple observations as recorded by the likes of Peter Wade, David Fisher, Alen Heath and even of Lee Macdonalds' view 8 hours after inferior conjunction (2001 March 30, 11.45 UT, 22cm Newtonian x91, seeing Antoniadi IV), as being entirely opposed to what I'd been informed by the likes of our pro-NASA collective of "spin" and "dog wagging" damage control freaks, and even by the likes of some of our best observatories stipulating that looking at Venus was too dangerous and even damaging to their instruments, whereas there's been absolutely no apparent problem whatsoever in honest folks and of their precious instruments safely imaging upon Venus while it's near or even transitting the sun, much less of preventing our laser targeting upon something that's so big and so accessible, simply because it's become so nearby. Obviously I had been entirely right all along, especially about the previous opportunity as for Viewing and attempting interplanetary communications, in that our warm and fuzzy NASA as usual blocked out the truth by their intentionally ignoring the opportunity and proceeded to further dog-wag and spin in order to avoid the subject altogether, as well as for instructing others to avoid the subject of Venus, while our NASA/NSA/DoD further screwed all of humanity, by way of their usual continuation of skewing those laws of physics and science to a fairlywell.

As for there honest efforts and their just rewards, I certainly hope the likes of ESA, Russia or even China/Cuba takes on this Venus opportunity, as to point out a thing or two about the sorts of other life existing on Venus, and then move onto taking the moon (literally), establishing their rightful and of the one and only LSE-CM/ISS, and of subsequently acquiring all the associated rewards.

David Fisher's sketch of numerous suspected bright illumination spots at the cusps (2001 February 23, 18.05 UT, 21.5cm Newtonian x153, x230, integrated light, apodising screen) is just another perfectly good set of examples of honest astronomy folks doing what's right, without a hidden agenda nor of any perceived ulterior motives in sight, thus obviously these nice folks haven't been thoroughly indoctrinated/assimilated by our NASA/NSA/DoD cloak of "nondisclosure".

I don't exactly want to have to say something as highly sophisticated as "I told you so", but of otherwise what the heck can some village idiot as myself know, except that apparently our NASA is simply full of it, in other words so chuck full of themselves that they honestly don't give a flying puck much less a tinkers damn about the truth, nor of the immoral implications as for their actions as well as for their orchestrated inactions on behalf of avoiding anything Venus, as well as their avoiding the truth about our moon for that matter, and otherwise for their part in thoroughly skewing those laws of physics and even astrophysics and subsequently nearly all of honest science into one of their stinking space toilets, that's already been badly overflowing with their backed-up cesspool of Apollo data that has become so badly skewed that 2+2 simply doesn't equal 4.

Now I'll have to say of that "heath4.jpg" image, that which perhaps could have utilized the W58 Green filter or the W80A blue filter, or even as stacked for best detecting those "suspected bright spots" that I believe those bright spots are in fact representing some form of either an enormous (unexplained) natural event or otherwise artificial illumination having been created from the surface of Venus, though of some massive and sustained lightning event would certainly become rather interesting facet, especially as unlikely and as short-lived as such a natural discharge would be, or perhaps they've gotten a hold of some of those WMD in the form of a hydrogen bomb, and wouldn't that be the kicker, especially if one of those H-Bombs should have our name (Earth) upon it, although I'd have to think the H-Bomb sort of illumination notion should have been visible for only a few seconds to perhaps a minute.

Apparently those damn British astronomy folks and of their vastly superior instruments to anything we have, at least they seem to be having no problems whatsoever with imaging upon Venus, even when it's situated right next to the sun or of crossing the photosphere.

As further pertaining to this image "heath4.jpg"; Of how much additional energy from the surface of Venus would it have taken as to have artificially created that much of an outgoing illumination zone?

Are we talking of Tera Watts or perhaps Giga Watts, or merely a focus of a few Mega Watts?

Earth has an UV/abc spectrum influx of 18 watts/m2
Venus should thereby offer an influx of 35 watts/m2

Earth's 400~425 nm influx is worth 100 watts/m2
Venus 400~425 nm influx should become 193 watt/m2

This following effort is often where my math runs itself amuck, or that I manage to get those issues of candela, watts, lux and/or lumens mixed up, though my honest intentions are merely to demonstrate that under somewhat conservative conditions it's quite possible for a surface generated illumination to have been created and subsequently seen by our instruments.

The bright spot looks to me as something that's having as little as a 300 km to a maximum spread of roughly 500+km in diameter (2e11 m2), and even if we're allowing for that of a 100 km cloud-top and having good elevation from the surface is suggesting an illumination dispersion or diffusion factor of nearly 150 degrees. In other words, if such an artificial illumination existed, such as a xenon lamp (CO2 arc) like projection cannon of a few degrees worth were being created, which obviously had to be powerful enough as to penetrate 20~40 km worth of dense cloud cover, at least I'd consider such a scattering of those photons would in fact occur. That amount of diffusion should likely be the case, even if the original beam were of 1º or less, especially if the cloud cover at the time represented 50+km worth of depth by which the scattering/diffusion of those photons takes place.

Worse case, if I were having to estimate upon doubling the reflected illumination of what the sun was creating within the spectrum of perhaps 425~450 nm, and if I arbitrary assigned a solar illumination reflection index value of this spectrum as being 10 w/m2, that makes the unfocused or 100% diffused energy source requirement as to being 2e11 * 10 = 2e12 or nearly 2 tera watts.

If we were having to increase upon this illuminated zone by a factor of merely 10% above that of the 10 watt/solar reflected photons, as such we're suggesting roughly 200 giga watts.

However, from my previous research into CO2 arc lamps (commercial xenon lamp) of sufficiently focused illumination sources (a standard off the shelf commercial 20" w/4kw xenon illumination cannon that delivers a somewhat normal full-spectrum CW beam (that which also includes a great deal of 440 nm) of creating 1.14^9 cd(candela), and otherwise easily capable of 1.4e9 cd(candela) if the standard mirror were simply replaced by of one having a high quality aluminum coating, and as such as there's certainly a great deal of candela(cd) and/or lumens/watt available, thereby an enormous focused intensity of said photons/watt. Of whatever energy requirement as for driving this illumination source is potentially available from just the vertical differential offset of 4+Bar/km, at nearly any desired volume necessary as to obtaining the kinetic value as for creating electrons isn't the least bit of a energy resource problem, not even for the task of producing several hundred giga watts if need be.

I believe the co2 arc which would likely incorporate carbon and/or mercury fed electrodes as an open to atmosphere lamp (if pulse driven) may represent a peak of 150 lumens per watt, although at 507 nm the human eye perceives 1700 lumen/watt as derived from a common lamp, whereas all the rest of the focused benefits are entirely dependent upon the mirrors and of whatever if any lens. Thus I believe if all of the lumens were to be focused down to 1º, that's potentially 150 * 360 * 180 = 9.7e6 lumens/watt, given -7% for mirror and lens losses and I believe that's becomes a beam that's delivering roughly 9e6 lumens/watt.

At a mere 4 kw and 1º is where I believe we've created a worthy beam of supposedly 1.4e9 cd or perhaps 36e9 lumens, and if there's supposedly a delivery capable of 1e28 photons/lumen (this number of photons/lumen could be a little unintentionally skewed, as I've identified other notations of there being 3e18 photons/Joule), obviously we've arrived at the potential of 36e37 photons available from this 4 kw illumination cannon, of that which upon the likes of Venus needs no stinking pressure bulb because, their environment is already pressurized with the necessary CO2/N2, as well as all of that being quite nicely preheated.

Of course, a full blown parabolic CO2 laser cannon that's capable of being operated in the ambient environment of Venus should function quite nicely at replacing the likes of otherwise hard-to-get xenon, although of the far-IR (9000~11000 nm) that's not offering the best prospect for transmitting through them clouds, and obviously remaining invisible to most astronomers, though as for utilizing the CO2 as merely the carrier wave for a mixture or element of mercury should easily shift that towards the near-UV. Of what a simple carbon arc spectrum is within the purity of mostly preheated CO2 could easily be all that's needed, and of certainly a little mercury content within either electrode is going to create a great deal of those photons in the near-UV spectrum.

Hot and absolutely bone dry CO2/N2 offers a darn good insulator, of which those free CO2/N2 atoms can be excited, along with any number of interesting elements introduced into this gas matrix as to obtaining the desired spectrum, whereas the metallic/conductive element of whatever the discharge electrodes are constructed of will obviously introduce a good number of the necessary properties for obtaining a given spectrum, in much the same manner as with the carbon arc within the atmosphere of Earth. Besides the obviously consideration for using carbon electrodes, there's any number of likely elements available on Venus for this task. So, once again, this is not even rocket science.

As for focusing all of this energy into a tidy beam of less than 1:
Essentially a parabolic mirror comprised of UV grade fused silica retro-reflectors can deliver quite a nicely focused beam of almost any desired spectrum, as the retro-reflectors themselves can also be of a band-pass nature (Dichros or a combination of long-pass filters and short-pass filters, or use of interference filters), although the near-UV spectrum is perhaps best accommodated by a combination of the surface reflective nature plus that of the retro-reflective aspects of what silica based optical elements can achieve, as for creating the highly efficient mirror like properties. Since the energy of 425~450 nm isn't going to be greatly absorbed by the silica retro-reflector, as for a parabolic surface element it seems the notion of using such retro-reflectors as to obtaining a narrow beam as possible isn't out of the question, and it certainly isn't outside of physics-101.

If we obtained 36e37 photons of 425~450 nm, achieving a mere 10% efficiency of cloud penetration = 36e36 photons, and of that amount spread over the 2e11 m2 zone as depicted in image "heath4.jpg" is 36e36 / 2e11 = 18e25 photons/m2.

Converted as back into watts/m2; 18e25 / 1e28 / 150 = .12e-3 watts/m2 (0.12 mw/m2).

Thus obviously the surface based CO2 arc (if that were of a sufficiently focused commercial xenon lamp format or perhaps more likely a carbon arc or of something like a mercury fed electrode arc) might require 40 MW in order to have displayed itself at the intensity of 1.2 w/m2, and so forth until you obtain whatever illumination desired.

So, as for the moment I'm going to suggest upon their utilizing 400 MW as for their CW source of photons as for creating the amount of outgoing photons of what we're seeing within that image, although I believe the opacity factor or index is actually far better off than of the 10% which I'd utilized, especially of the 400~425 nm which might in places obtain a 25% opacity factor and thereby much lesser divergence. Also, as for the diameter of that illumination zone might actually be somewhat less than my guestimate upon 500+km, thus its actual illumination area could be as little as 1e11 m2 as opposed to the 2e11 m2 that I had utilized, of which this outcome obviously cuts their energy source requirement by half.

Unlike the sub-frozen, freely pulverised and otherwise TBI to death Mars environment, obtaining the likes of 400 MW or even giga watts isn't rocket science for the likes of Venus, as for their vertical pressure differential of 4+Bar/km and sheer density of that lower atmosphere, this is like having a reverse waterfall at your disposal, as for extracting loads of energy on location and/or on demand, and that's of by day or night making little difference, though if anything their extended season of nighttime should represent a somewhat greater pressure differential/km than by day, and of somewhat cooler and thereby of greater density per m3 than by day.

Don't even try arguing against the energy availability aspect of what Venus has to offer, as for such being all that impossible, as if anything the environment of Venus offers way more than it's fair share of easily available kinetic energy as extracted from just it's atmospheric pressure differential alone, more than perhaps all of Earth, and then some. You may however suggest upon some formula or merely other estimates or even raw guestimates of what you'd feel more likely the case than not, and I wont take offence unless your formula comes up empty.

I believe it would be far more likely as for that of our detecting such as an artificial illumination as originating from Venus rather than from a reflected amount of photons as transmitted from Earth. Unless we utilized the entire energy output of the Boeing/TRW ABL (100 MW), chances are that of our final divergence is simply too great and of the resulting photons would thereby have become spread over a much larger diameter as well as shifted towards the IR rather than the UV spectrum. The resulting influx upon the tops of them clouds would have become 0.167 mw/m2, and of what's reflected back would not likely exceed 25%, or .042 mw/m2 of which could not have been detected as the nature of illumination that's depicted within the "heath4.jpg" image having been presented to us by Alan HEATH (Nottingham,UK).

If the Boeing/TRW ABL performed at 0.5 milliradian, whereas at the distance of merely 50e6 km provides a minimal target/zone diameter of 873+km (6e11 m2) excluding any tracking jitters, of which at this 50e6 km range is asking quite a great deal from something that's originating as airborne at 12 km. At closest juncture, I believe it's conceivable for the ABL to produce a 700 km spot using a 0.5 milliradian laser derived from the altitude of 12 km, although that's also without any further divergence nor jitter factor, and preferably of a modified LASER cannon beam spectrum that's pumped with the likes of CO2 and a little mercury as to creating the 425~450 nm spectrum rather than their usual IR weapons grade spectrum. Therefore I believe it's still unlikely that our wizards could have created such an illumination, especially since less than 25% of those ABL photons would have been reflected, and less than 15% of what's under the 425 nm and so on.

Even though photons sent from our own transmitted packet wouldn't have suggested all that much reflected illumination from our perspective, and most certainly not as detectable upon the daylight surface, although negative aspects of this sort of all-out ABL interplanetary packet overkill should be rather obvious, especially if being delivered upon their season of nighttime, or upon some rigid airship observatory that's cruising above them clouds, in that if we inadvertently blinded some of those Venus nocturnal lizard folks or even those of heathen status, chances are that our best intentions would have started things off on the wrong foot once again, and as a result it'll be unlikely if ever possible for us to rent one of their rigid airships unless we handed over those bastards responsible for such crimes against humanity, or lizanity if that matters.

In perhaps far too many other words; an illumination hot spot or bright zone of such concentrated photons by any sort upon the surface of our moon, as for having no atmosphere whatsoever is an absolute physics-101 no-no, that's almost as bad-off as for having mother Earth situated some 5 degrees off the lunar horizon, whereas the "heath4.jpg" image of Venus is essentially a truthful recording of physics-101 operating pretty much exactly as it's supposed to, of honest folks detecting what's not all that likely by way of anything natural and/or by all accounts of the known laws of nature, whereas this unusually high level of photon display as emitted from Venus simply has not been proven the sort of sustained (CW) illumination that occurs naturally. Gee whiz folks, I'm wondering what options that leaves us with?

So, I'll suppose that once again I'm the one and only soul coming off as being "all knowing", when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. At least you can be certain that those opposing what I've discovered and uncovered are going to suggest that somehow I was the one that started things off on the wrong foot, as of 3+ years ago by becoming the messenger from hell that wasn't going away any time soon, of my telling folks that we've overlooked a few rather significant details about Venus and even aspects of our moon that simply fail to collaborate with our NASA moderated and subsequently published facts.

If on the other hand, should you have anything worth discussing and/or accomplishing on behalf of humanity (including whatever corrections to my math), as such we should discuss those implications of what's entirely possible as opposed to taking our instructions form those folks being continually so damn arrogant and opposed to the truth, much less of their being opposed to other life NOT as we know it. And, if that's interpreted as my form of being all knowing and/or the village idiot messenger from hell and all, then so be it.

Should any of this disclosure be the least bit shocking and seriously eye-opening as to how and of why so many otherwise nice folks that have managed to survive in spite of their having been so entirely snookered, deceived into believing in our perpetrated cold-wars and of continuing the decline of our integrity, and even faith in the sorts of GW Bush educational "high standards and accountability", then perhaps this is as good of place as any to impose the GW Bush "so what's the difference" policy, as opposed to our honestly taking hold of this discovery responsibility and of hopefully showing a little remorse before the next big aircraft smashes into yet another tall building, or worse. So, this disclosure of truth or consequences about Venus and our moon should be the exact opposite of "doom and gloom", as I believe it's a solid ray of hope for humanity if there ever was. The only doom and gloom aspects will become if nothing is being done with respect to our retroactively correcting the record of history and thereby correcting the honesty aspects of physics and of the science of what our NASA was supposedly all about in the first place.


To the INDEX page: GUTH Venus (with loads of recently posted UPDATES)
alternate URL's: http://guthvenus.tripod.com  and  http://geocities.com/bradguth
Copyright © 2000~2004 - Brad E. Guth
GUTH Venus: All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: Brad Guth - Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA   ~  1-253-8576061
created: April 28, 2004

Brad Guth / IEIS IEIS-Brad@Juno.com
(due to officially DHS sanctioned email account bashings, as well as unauthorized moderation of my email accounts, if push should come down to shove, you can always call or simply post your reply in GOOGLE or Space.com using "bradguth-email" or otherwise include "guthvenus" within your subject line, in that way I'll find you, though even GOOGLE as well as Space.com can internally moderate/exclude anything by you know who)