As the theory of this hypocrisy goes;
If you get yourself caught making a mistake, God forbid, what ever you do never admit to ever making any such mistake and, always poit at anyone other.
If you've already made a few mistakes, further skewing a sufficient amount of evidence (including history as well as upon whatever science and physics it takes) will eventually make your mistake least noticeable, certainly not the original culprit nor worth the focus of any peer group. Besides, if you're God, you are the peer group. As for everyone else, irregardless of their dilemma, can just go stick it.
If certain forgotten about other avenues have lead certain researchers back towards your initial mistake, accusing such others as being inferior in every way possible and not to exclude a little national security justified enforcement, somehow this is supposed to make your case much stronger and thereby less responsible for whatever.
Always maintain multiple standards, that way you not only can pick and choose whatever suites your agenda but, you'll feel great about treating your friends with the only sort of respect they understand, differentiating those you aspire with awe and of any challengers as being worth less than dirt. After all, you're nearly God or better.
This GUTH analogy might even apply to myself, except for the facts that I'm not claiming as being the "all knowing" expertise on all matters of Venus and, surly I'm no expert upon much of anything Apollo. However, one need not be the expert in all fields in order to appreciate the concerns of others and of far reaching implications imposed by those claiming to be God, especially when their "extraordinary proof" so often turns out being not all that universally accepted as extraordinary, in that there's so much unexpectedly unexplained, as then things start running seriously amuck and, as being the "village idiot" that I am, that's certainly not my fault when I uncover a few too many questions. I would like nothing better than to post any number of links to the independently verifiable truths about our Apollo missions and to acknowledge the abstinence of NASA's role with respect to anything NSA/DoD cold-war agendas but, you and I know we simply can not do that without fostering a good deal of skewed history as well as skewed science and skewed physics to boot.
I have a darn good "science story" about Venus: It's a story because of what can be sufficiently identified as being more likely artificial than not and, it's science because of what's scientifically known to already exist and of subsequently what recorded physics stipulates is entirely possible.
To start off with, I totally concur with Stuart Kauffman, we simply "do not understand evolution". So, when I researched into understanding the exobiology of Venus, I'm seriously way over my head, along with having to take all the flak from those claiming as being the "all knowing" lords of whatever's what.
Because the physics of heat is nearly always a good thing (example: our sun is a relatively good thing, whereas Pluto isn't worth squat), the biological thermodynamics of life (especially the bulk of which we know NOT of), is more likely than not to have survived the gradual onset of the Venus greenhouse environment. After all, greenhousing simply didn't occur over night, not even if those nights were 2900 hours long. We happen know that the vast volumes of our universe (99.999%) is comprised of considerable mass that's hovering sufficiently near to or at O°K and, we further know that the science and physics of life as we know it pretty much ceases to evolve at such low thermodynamics. As things start to heat up (especially above 225°K), all sorts of possibilities come into play, including forms of life, presumably far more so of those we know NOT of. So, how exactly can the lords of our prestigious institutions coveting the moderation stamp of approval by their pagan God (NASA) expect anyone to believe other life was never possible, much lesser sustainable as for anything Venus?
Stuart Kauffman refers to the "coevolution of autonomous agents" as being just about everywhere you care to look, including inward at yourself, as I too believe this logic is representing proof positive that beneficial solutions to life do occur (in spite of mankind), as from the most basic chemical building blocks into the least complex cellular level and then obviously all the way up the chain of life as we know it and most certainly beyond. Thus it seems most likely that given the opportunity of a suitable historical environment and of sufficient time (Venus having both), it's not only possible but likely for life to have evolved. Furthermore, by tossing in the rather obvious motivation of detecting measurable change in one's environment would likely have evolved certain intellectual focus upon the task at hand, that of surviving by taking advantage of the future or else.
Kauffman also refers to the "forth law of thermodynamics for self-constructing systems". This is serious stuff worth conjuring over because, if life manipulates upon their inner as well as their outer surroundings in order to suit a given task, then obviously those rather numerous visible geometrical attributes of highly symmetrical features which seem to be existing along with an extraordinary degree of infrastructure are surely self evident that some form of coevolution took place in a very big way and, if so it's entirely probable to expect their surviving what we might otherwise consider as an entirely nonrecoverable situation, perhaps somewhat like what snuffed out the lights for Earth and took nearly every living creature along with it, was sort of a "RESET" upon the ultimate interactive video game of life and, here we are plugging away at destroying this planet just as fast as we can, where the top 1% of it's inhabitants have been essentially ruling those subservient to their needs, except with any honest respect to the Venus greenhouse evolution was not so instantaneous, having perhaps thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years to fully develop, giving evolution as well as intellectual technology the opportunity of either pissing or getting off the pot.
I'm certainly not the one suggesting that being subservient is necessarily a bad thing, just a little to darn covenant if those on top (Catholics over the Cathars) should wish to skew a little of that truth into the toilet of life, along with whatever it takes in the way of skewed science and physics as to backing that up, as there's certainly quite a lot at stake, especially once you've invested so heavily upon the ruse of the century, that message also goes for Apollo.
As my critics seem to impose their will againt my efforts, I've come to realizing that knowing all there is to know doesn't make you God, not even King for a day, you're just sufficiently smarter than all others and should thereby be held to a much higher moral standard than the rest of us village idiots. The more you happen to know the greater the moral responsibility you have as to share with others, whatever should make life worth living, at least that's what the other surviving species of this planet have done all along for millions of years (unless you're catholic, as then you don't have to include Cathars), I suppose that should apply to us humans. So, before you critique my syntax, grammar, math or ideals, consider what makes your superiority so above it all?
In the beginning of all this Venus interest, there was merely a darn good observational discovery of what's honestly most likely existing on Venus as representing itself as artificial, then came the flak (official and otherwise) and the rest is history. Because I'm not the world's greatest story writer, reading through my UPDATE page and selecting upon the items linked within may become somewhat taxing or confusing, especially if you're looking not for discovery, not for ideas and not for ideals worthy of humanity.