Coming to a theater near you: October 2002 : Venus will be close enough to almost touch.
( I'm so freaking right, and everyone else has been so dead wrong and, I believe I can damn well prove it )
SAR = EXTRAORDINARY PROOF: (especially of that acquired @43°)
The test of providing "extraordinary proof" is quite interesting, in that unlike CCD and even of much finer resolution photographic negatives (like the sort involved with our questionable Apollo missions), by having equal access to the raw original digital format which was generated from a NSA-spy grade SAR digital imaging satellite is all together different. First of all, you can not falsify upon a damn thing without that easily being detected and, SAR imaging is simply not the sort of technology that offers any opportunity as to introducing distortion because of a lens nor otherwise affected by improper lighting or of any lighting considerations whatsoever. Essentially; SAR imaging is about as proof worthy and imaging truth positive as observational astronomy comes.
Naturally, a tighter resolution would be nice however, what we obviously have to work with (considering the surroundings, perspective viewing angle and the mere size of what is clearly indicating as artificial) is not all that bad, unless you happen to be looking for smaller definition details, which in this instance we don't actually require when the notable structures and associated community infrastructure are those sufficiently large.
What can I say; this Venus discovery has simply become the greatest space exploration opportunity we have at hand and, I can still say that in spite of what NASA has been stating, as this opportunity is clearly supported by truly the most exceptional as well as extraordinary imaging proof there is and, I believe reasonable support is forthcoming by all those capable of seeing the moral possibilities (BTW; this discovery is by far exceeding anything Mars has to offer) as well as that which is providing acceptable as well as offering our most affordably obtainable goals. October 2002 is just another prime example, that of an absolutely surefire window of opportunity.
A little about myself and then of my critics: It took myself hundreds of hours poring over literally dozens of Venus image files even before I focused upon this first worthy site, then a couple of hundred more hours as to further studying and reviewing the image area through all sorts of photo-software, as well as my continued surveying of virtually hundreds of other interesting Venus sites, trying to identify other worthy considerations as well as for making darn certain that the expected natural terrain of Venus was in fact similar to that rugged area surrounding these artificial looking elements (before and after enlargement) as situated all about the "GUTH Venus" site which I'm thinking is at an elevation of roughly 5 km.
So, how can my photo-graphically impaired critics be so damn capable?; especially when they can't even seem to image those lunar lander remains nor even lay their hands upon one of those Apollo radiated and thermally stressed negatives, nor even of that all essential film documentation of the various test flights of the 1/6th gravity scaled lunar lander, especially odd when they so otherwise oppose my extended and experienced efforts as to my Venus discoveries, as I was having to so thoroughly apply my experienced capabilities prior to any open decision as to even concentrate upon the first of these discovery sites, as well as all of that being prior to my bothering to even inform NASA as to what I had perceived as being artificial. Where as my opposition to all of this seems only too quick to judge, as within only a few minutes and, then mostly so as to only support NASA in disqualifying whatever is within the raw as well as my enlargements of "GUTH Venus", their doing all this without the expertise nor first hand aerial imaging experience or that of actual commercial format photography investments. Boy, these pro-NASA types are apparently damn good, real good.
It's quite interesting, that all of this rejection is apparently from those not the least bit qualified in actual first-hand photographic technology of imaging artificial elements, where few if any of my critics even own and/or operate commercial 70mm photograph equipment, nor accomplish their own developing and enlargements (most can't even seem to master their own digital enlargements, yet somehow are thoroughly capable of judging others). The experience of practical analysis of such aerial imaging seems to be totally missing from my critics qualifications, just as is their being unwilling and/or incapable of learning anything new by devoting more then a few minutes at looking over my primary image, seldom bothering to review other enlargements (including the braille version) and, acting as though all of the sudden (within a matter of minutes) they are somehow photographic experts as well as vastly superior SAR observational technicians at deciphering aerial images (I'm not sure but, I'm beginning to think most of these guys have trouble finding their own toilet paper). NASA and NIMA can't even work as a team on behalf of anything, so why should anyone believe what NASA states, as they has all sorts of motives as well as incentives to lie.
Why do I even bother?, and, why should we expect anything different from NASA? After all, from our highly paid braille image interpreters at NASA seem quite willing to sacrifice whatever and/or whomever it takes, just as long as their job, benefits and thereby their butts are being protected. And, because they are so blind, they simply can't tell how much of the nondisclosure brown is still on their nose. If you are one of those to be insisting upon opposing my discovery and, feel the need for obtaining a better understanding of SAR imaging, all you need to do is to search for "SAR imaging" and, you will uncover far more then you ever wanted to know, such as how NASA has either been outright lying for the past couple of decades or simply dumber then hell about our own SAR imaging capabilities (perhaps this is where ENRON acquired their executive pool from, they simply were confused and selected those from the cesspool rather then the NASA spa).
Most of my pro-NASA critics have never even even viewed a navigational radar image, let alone had to navigate by one, where I have extensively accomplished both as well as installed, serviced and repaired such equipment. I have also managed to learn more then most about digital CCD equipment and related photo-software capabilities. I believe I also know from actual experience, more then most about what limits exist with conventional as well as specialized films and, what factors maintain film as that being superior to CCD and, where CCD imaging can surpass certain limitations of film. I also happen to comprehend the SAR technology and the attractive imaging advantages it supports by virtually eliminating distortions, of more capable resolutions from greater distances and, where illumination is a non-issue and, where contours as well as structural shape and dimensional depth can be truthfully realized in spite of there being no light and a thick cloud cover (even where most camouflage is easily penetrated). SAR imaging can also help and experienced viewer to realize the composition of what it sees and doing so more certainly by taking 4 to 8 additional looks per pixel and, all of these advantages of SAR imaging are not without substantially certified reality proof checks, in other words, representing about as "extraordinary" imaging proof as it's ever going to get. Again, simply apply your browser search engine to locate "SAR imaging" and, I'll guaranty that you will be blown away by just how good and how believable this imaging has become.
First off; the SAR imaging reports only what is there and otherwise offers no optical illusions thereof: Besides implementing multiple looks so as to eliminate noise and insure the targets exist, radar like (SAR) imaging can also depict densities or composition (film & CCD simply offers nothing), SAR shadows are easily detected as such (film & CCD simply can not distinguish between something painted dark or of that existing as shadow), SAR signal bounce and/or potential reflections are those easily discriminated as such (some may disagree about film & CCD as not so easily if at all allowing for comprehensive evaluation, especially if not knowing where illumination was derived and, thus NASA may claim all those multiple Apollo shadows as well as considerable "hot-spots" and exceptional fill-in lighting that materialized from a 10% reflective surface, do in fact somehow not represent alternate or artificial illumination sources), SAR signal absorbson and/or signal defection offers an invaluable definition tool of well certified and otherwise of highly understandable imaging results, as that easily to be proven as benefits as to establishing target shape and, even as to a great extent of what that target substance could actually be comprised of (film & CCD is at a total washout as to such capabilities), then acquiring scale measurements due to having accurate SAR target distance information as well as having the excellent perspective viewing angle of 43 degrees has offered nearly 3D usable data (without known distance and from purely optical imaging captured by film or CCD can [under direct face lighting] produce essentially flat two-dimensional images of total illusions or of nothing usable at all). With SAR, comprehensive comparisons to the target surroundings can be truthfully analysed in relation to those of specific artificial targets (again; photographic methods, even with good lighting, can become relatively flat or non-dimensional and therefore deceiving), SAR imaging can also penetrate most camouflage (film & CCD is nearly useless unless you happen to know in advance what sort of camouflage to be looking for and, then you still can't penetrate that camouflage).
Again, I'll restate that digital SAR imaging simply can not be doctored without so being detected (especially when everyone has access to the originals), whereas protected "non-disclosure" CCD files as well as much higher resolution capable film (example: all those Apollo lunar images), as long as no one has access to the true original files or negatives, all sorts of alterations can be and I believe have been introduced as well as content removed/added, then if need be, a simple inner-negative or even a digital master can be generated that looks for-real but is in fact is a total fabrication (willful distortion of the facts) and thus, I believe not one original Apollo negative is or will likely ever be made available to be analyzed and, if still you need more extraordinary NASA abuse, I ask that you simply take a review of my lunar URL document: moon-02.htm. This is a fairly old initial effort in retaliation to the unsubstantiated bashing my discovery was taking and, not really all that great of an effort at defending my discovery from those NASA moles at "uplink.space.com", where they felt it was entirely OK to snap judge and further bash away at my discovery.
Somehow my questioning their less then extraordinary Apollo proof, which besides having all sorts of relevant content and technical issues, all of which was to be denied access to the original negatives as well as those 1/6th scale lunar-lander test flight films, yet all these critically missing negative(s) and documentation films are somehow not the least bit their problem in support of those Apollo missions. Will, darn if I beg to differ and, I'll just continue to return the favor, especially if these pathetic moles are so willing to bash away at my discovery based upon the official image by which I'm working from, because, at least all others have full access to my original source which happens to be of SAR imaging, that which is vastly superior to anything photographic or even CCD.
More about correctly reading SAR imaging; Because certain hard (mechanical/metallic) objects reflect more radar signal exactly the way analog navigational radars commonly detect metallic targets verses soil or rock. (For an example; an intentional navigational marker will always image larger and, that factor may be at 4 to 10 times actual size relative to natural surroundings), so equally, SAR in effect may have magnified such lessor targets representing perhaps half or less of the designated target area or intended resolution size, plus other tighter resolutions having to fulfill the GIF mapping conversion were further magnified or quantified, as all 4 looks were achieving as little as a raw 10 meter resolution whenever the satellite was traveling in the elliptical orbit at the periapsis altitude of 275km, where this target information was forced into satisfying or occupying the 75 meter per pixel mapping coverage. No matter what the final outcome or process is (75 or 225 meters per pixel), the objects comprising "GUTH Venus" (in good faith relative relationship to their natural surroundings) simply remain as most likely artificial and only their true size remains to be established (not of their existence, as size is entirely objective or perhaps even irrelevant). Access into the original SAR imaging data could therefore yield somewhat greater specific target resolution, rather then that of an enlarged average.(NOTE: based upon an altitude of 618km over "GUTH Venus", utilizing the 2.1° aperture, my latest calculations place this raw SAR detection at representing roughly 94 meters/pixel).
With any regard to resolution and thereby target size; I've asked of others to help accomplish this task, and I have received nothing all that convencing, so, besides my own determination as to the above 94 meters/pixel, I'm still working on further resolving the actual resolution at "GUTH Venus" (as a technical notation: @2.1° aperture and @618km altitude; through utilizing basic math places the raw coverage area or individual strip width as represented at 22.5km and, if dividing 22.5km coverage by 240 pixels = 94 meters resolution, so, exactly where NASA derived and/or decided upon their 75 meter resolution is perhaps based upon the global imaging average). SAR having the advantage of multiple image scans gives further rise to several (all positive) potentials; that of somewhat better combined resolution. As by having more looks or scans, not only is the image "truth" factor greatly improved upon but also somewhat better is the final resolution (the more SAR "looks" the better), where the average becomes essentially a digital focus rather then a photographic blur. Basically, in relation to CCD and even more so of conventional photography, there is little bad to say about SAR imaging except that SAR can not so easily read print nor discriminate colors (in final conversion to digital graphic output, everything becomes a shade of gray or of whatever color you choose).
I further believe, in that if anyone truly needs the added technical support of "extraordinary proof", that logic would have to be derived from NASA's Apollo missions and, not that by way of certified digital SAR imaging of "GUTH Venus", where my interpretations as to what the possible or potential functions of such intentional looking structures situated on Venus may represent is just that, "interpretations", which by itself imposes nor implies anything whatsoever negative with any regard to that of my interpreting the overall generalized implications and thereby qualification, that being consistent to supporting the discovering of these strikingly unusual and true anomalies as for being anything other then artificial.
Furthermore; not one critical soul has presented their observational imaging of any planet (including Earth) offering such a degree of complex formations that supports the overwhelming degree and/or the sheer quantity of hosting such rational and thereby intelligent assuming formations. In other words, this discovery is flat-out for real and, if you still think not, then you merely have to provide your observational image(s) that best authenticates that all of this is somehow purely of natural causes, as those being imaged examples of such that equally created extremely complex formations that are of natural formation. So far, others and even myself can not locate any such natural formations, however, I've only looked in a thousand or so places. Meanwhile, October 2002 has come and gone, so, perhaps it's time for others to "put up or shut up".
As most any (observational astronomy) image enlargement process goes, the software process can in fact intentionally introduce false information and distortions, but only if the operator (fool) wishes to allow this and, is willing to be easily detected as doing just that (unlike those illusive original Apollo negatives, the "GUTH Venus" discoveries supports that everyone has equal access to the raw original digital format and, this is even more so confidence boosted when that original was purely of digital/SAR content to start with).
About enlargements; I do fully understand there is better digital photo software out there because, I've seen it and, I've tried it out (but did not buy because my MasterCharge card is missing the NASA logo) and, clearly I saw for myself further capabilities (and not that of creating any distortions but basically that of better enlargement focus) and, I also know that our NIMA.MIL has even better, and yet no individual or agency has seen fit to sufficiently out-do or challenge what I have managed, let alone accomplish anything towards their disproving a damn thing (I can't but wonder what is so hard about doing that?). So, if you think your photo software is so much better (NASA moles clearly stated that "my software was crap") and, can therefore prove or disprove any aspect of what I've been stating, please go right ahead and prove it (as I've stated before; my critics simply need to "put up or shut up") plus, then I'll post a link to your fine workmanship as well as give you all the credit (which by the way is a lot more then I've received from NASA).
In working from an original digital format; if only the contrast and brightness issues are those to be modified, virtually nothing of the original pixels are in any manner distorted nor imposing any form of an illusion. Obviously, over contrasting essentially blacks nearly everything out (just as if that was what you intended to accomplish) and, then obviously over-bright (intensity) essentially washes and/or bleeds everything out (again, accomplishing exactly as if that was the goal you were looking for). In my efforts, I have tried to minimize over doing such filters, as there are reasonable limits as well as obvious points of no further improvement. Enlargements for the sake of others, not so capable of doing their own work, is why I generated so many alternate views. If you can't do your own enlargements, then perhaps you should not oppose what others can, instead, a little positive support on behalf of what this discovery represents would be appreciated.
If the enlargement process was to further include only that of software controlled re-sampling (a highly proven and certified mathematical fractal imaging process of equally multiplying out and thus equally averaging for each and every existing and therefore newly produced pixel), then here again, nothing whatsoever is being falsely introduced, however, there are some obvious limitations within this process, that which limits reasonable magnification, such as, up until the point where further pixel multiplying offers lessor perceived improvement, or what I would call introducing softness (unless of course you intend to project this image onto a 100 foot screen, then by all means). The above image represents approximately a 7.5X resampling enlargement. I've had sufficiently good results with as little as 3X, and otherwise attempted as much as 20X, where the higher resampling obviously impacts with considerably greater software filtering options and thus added time consumed by applying sharpening filters, and then also impacts by creating a substantially larger file size and thus increased computer resource demands, which simply slows down or even halts or stalls your editing experience as well as printing processes. I have determined that with my software, exceeding 10X is not such a beneficial idea. I do believe the latest software products seem most capable of 20X before loosing their control or benefit over the intent of your enlargement (5x or 20x, the raw information as to these elements being clearly artificial remain exactly the same, only the perception as to what they may actually function as is perhaps better defined by applying greater magnification).
Applying various image software sharpness (poorly named unsharp mask) filters and a little "moire removal";
This also modifies nothing of the original information (it just can't do that unless you intended to detectably and so totally over saturate and thereby distort your filtering effects), however, too much sharpening can also become a somewhat counter productive tool, as to some this alone diminishes the potential quality by loosing a fraction of the softness, a form of usable detail to the human eye and our vastly superior internal visual processors (realistic or fuzzy logic softness) that for some most familiar with standard photographic enlarging may prefer (as long as they always have the original to work with, which in this instance they most certainly do). Unless you back off from the image, softness is essentially what most any enlargement process creates, where this unfiltered format is what I initially worked from for the first two months (even more so is this typical of your conventional optical enlargers), especially when being so derived from such a crude original (conventional photographic or digital image makes little difference), however, with software/digital enlargement, one has several well accepted tools which surpass anything possible by standard photographic means, such as "Moire Removal" and the "Unsharp Mask" are complex filters that help to somewhat correct and/or compensate for basically over-enlarging and/or over-sharpening, but otherwise these filters alter little if anything of the original raw pixel information, in fact, these filters are intended only to fully restore the original image representation, and basically to prove upon it, then you simply need to take a few steps back from your monitor or prints in order to realize that this fact is true.
If it were not for all having access to the original raw digital image, this Magellan imaging and virtually anything related to enlargements would be at risk. With my work, this has not been the case and, further evidence and/or extraordinary proof is thereby maintained within the original SAR binary data files, those files which hold the multiple looks (scans) used to establish the content of each and every represented pixel. Unlike those missing original Apollo photographic negatives (offering at least 100 times the potential resolution of your typical digital image as well as the opportunity of print dodging and dark area burning that could have embellished upon those missing stars), every such image being represented as NASA's extraordinary proof are at risk because, they are only supported from secondary inner-negatives or lessor scanned prints, where the processes of manipulating image content is widely acknowledged, relatively simple and nearly undetectable by the most critical of the viewing public when the original is not available, thereby, as with those scanned and/or reproduced Apollo prints, you simply can not believe nor would it hold up in court as to what is to be seen and, especially without the original negatives, NASA simply can not truthfully support their claim, yet somehow they seem willing to risk rejecting my discovery (therefore now, more then ever, I'm looking for motives).
In my efforts to critically review this "GUTH Venus" image, besides testing and applying all variations of my photo/enlargement software products, of which I have several, I have also undertaken to further enlarge nearly 100 other most interesting locations on Venus (in part, I have been looking for signs of the second, third and forth outposts and, otherwise simply viewing of anything out of the ordinary as well as continuing to prove my enlargements are not introducing nor distorting one damn thing) by applying the very same processes and trying every alternate procedure and filter at my disposal. In none of the attempts have I introduced false data nor distorted anything nor created that which was not already established within the original raw format (the terrain looked every bit as true and unmodified as that within the raw original image). In other words, in none of the other area enlargements did my software cause shapes to materialize and/or to formulate into artificial looking elements, nor was there anything remotely created as that appearing as any sort of infrastructure and, thus far, just the normal lava flow channels, erosions and rock formations were effectively being enlarged, and looking every bit the same as that based upon the original raw image (simply a larger photo format representation of the exact same pixel information). So, why all the fuss about my having to deliver further extraordinary proof? I think I've more then demonstrated what is to be seen and, perhaps that's where the problem resides, the fact that I have uncovered yet another extremely sensitive and highly worthy discovery, one which NASA has provided no other explanation nor excuses for their 11 year lapse and ongoing denials.
I believe others as well as myself can easily qualify my results, quite reliably, over and over, as I have achieved the exact same effect, that of good usable enlargements depicting everything as is, however, only at much better perceived detail considering the degree of enlargement has often been between that of 10 and as much as 20 times (5x being sufficient for most monitors and should you not intend to make the printed image larger then 10"x8"). If you are still not square (current or knowledgeable) with such processes, I'll gladly introduce you to what others and myself have to work with, then you will soon learn for yourself the rules and methods by which all of this is possible, and learn also that no matters how hard you may try, introducing anything false will easily become detected as just that (perhaps this is why our NASA is not ever going to openly re-examine those Apollo mission negatives, as every bit of tampering and attempted illusion would become detectable, especially once those original large format negatives are scanned at 9600 dpi or better resolution, as your basic B/W 70mm large format commercial film can potentially offer something like 3600 dpi resolution and, by scanning that same 50mm negative area at something like 9600 dpi would offer an impressive digital 10x8 format of at least 1,920 dpi or a whopping 19,200 pixels across a 10" print), and even using conventional direct photographic means could easily obtain (with acceptable grain) 100 times magnification as well as enhanced intensity and details via burning and dodging as well as by using either specialized inner-negatives and/or applied onto higher contrast photo papers, but that would likely pull stars out of that crisp clear black lunar sky, you know, that vibrantly star spangled extravaganza that every one of the Apollo missions so conveniently failed to photograph, and that perhaps you also know for obvious reasons why we simply can't have that (given the date and time of exposure, the specific camera location could be easily established by the pattern or plot of those stars).
It seems that I must keep reminding those that are not so easily convinced (mostly loyal moles or those frightened NASA types), that of 100's of other Venus area enlargements, none (to such degree as this location of "GUTH Venus #1, #2 & #3") has offered the impact of hosting such a total number of complex structural artificial patterns and worthy elements as well as showing such a considerable relationship of hosting highly rational infrastructure. Sorry NASA, I beg to differ with your blanket protective proclamations of "nothing whatsoever existing", and that's the whole truth and nothing but the truth... In every instance, my enlargement process also clearly depicts the surrounding natural terrain with all sorts of erosion and rock formations as those being equally enhanced (equally undistorted) as merely being as equally enlarged and, even though the re-sampling applied all of those averaged new pixels, it seems that those truly naturally formed elements were looking every bit as natural as viewed in the original (72dpi) raw image (just backing substantially away from your enlargement quickly proves this out, just as well as reversing your image re-sampling process). In each instance of the enlargement process, there never were any new channels or strange new rock formations or erosions or even variations thereof introduced, and it's as simple as that. For Pete's sake, our NSA and DoD along with their infamous NIMA agency, and I'll just bet NASA secretly utilize this exact same process all the time, so get over it, it works and everyone (except perhaps you) can totally prove it.
I have always asked of my critics, to first accomplish their own critical enlargements (most seemingly unwilling or perhaps unable or just incapable and now perhaps afraid of internal NASA repercussions for doing such) and, I offered to openly discuss their and/or my processes. I expressed that I would further accept even a single image showing anything of equal or better representations, but that of depicting purely naturally formed elements, so arranged as to be equally appearing as though artificially constructed, yet clearly formed by that of only natural causes. In addition, I have stated that I would accept those images from any planet including Earth as a suitable source. Guess what? So far, not one pathetic soul (including all of NASA and their moles) has managed to accomplish this. I'm still waiting, but not for long because, hell is starting to freeze over.
If you have anything negative to say about me or my discovery, first be so prepared as to disclose that image (any image) supporting your point of view. After all, this remote imaging interpretation is precisely of what observational astronomy is always about (just as many of those Apollo missions, Mars related and even some deep space images are being so interpreted and thus continually being contested or not, based heavily upon someone's observational expertise) and, your interpretations could be entirely right, just as Club NASA has already established (just totally without any supporting image) as somehow proclaiming as "truth" that this area of Venus is "exactly like everywhere else on Venus", thus making others and myself the fool... I don't think so, in fact, I think those slacking critics as well as others intentionally opposing (bashing) my discovery are so pathetic and now at such extreme risk of being so totally exposed, that personal or at least occupational suicide may become their only option. Just think, and consider what may become the next wave of taxpayer and humanity revolt, and whom that focus will likely be upon and, how the corrected history and the perception of our country's space research and exploration may be impacted, with naturally that of the far greater impact upon current lives of those yet basing their misguided beliefs and reputations upon our now questionable past and, perhaps the present day ultimate ruse as becoming that pertaining to the Apollo era and, perhaps much more and much worse is yet to come.
Because of how others, especially those braille image interpreters at NASA failed to respond to my discovery properly, I guess I'll have lots more to say about history and current events, as how my research has have come to perceive those in such power have molded and filtered everything possible so as to create and sustain the desired perceptions, as well as by their thoroughly distorting our perceived knowledge base pertaining to true space exploration, and how I have come to believe this deeply embedded and now highly compounded ruse has so thoroughly impacted our greatest chance at something non-political and of non-antagonistic Earthly beneficial (humanitarian) opportunities. In this very instance of my discovery, by specifically failing to recognize the opportunities or even by not making any effort towards contacting those on the planet Venus, instead, we must further waste our finite resources and best minds on protecting what little we have left, often drafting our finest minds and now our bodies into protecting those agendas willfully unworthy of our continued support and, at one hell of a global price at that. Has our phony contrived "cold-war(s)" against the USSR, including the USS STARK incident and perhaps "9/11" been any sort of a clue or what? (I am beginning to think not)
What if Venus were to be exploring/probing us:
As to be considering just the opposite of my discovering GUTH Venus, and let us believe that we are the ones being explored and probed by those from Venus, and by utilizing fairly similar imaging technology capable of clearly depicting terrain at equivalent resolution. Now let us further suppose their crack wizards were equally mesmerised and/or bored by what they saw, so much so that they too failed to notice peculiar indications of items such as the "Golden Gate bridge", various large monuments, massive stadiums, airports and the like, as instead focused all of their research and exploration efforts upon locating parched areas which only their people would be the least bit interested, namely scorched desert like regions sustaining (day and night) temperatures well above 150 degrees (F), preferably 250(F). And because they naturally found none such, and in fact as supported from other research missions which detected all sorts of nasty infectious microbes, including mass plague and anthrax spores along with lethal snow and ice and even sub-zero temperatures, all of which must have been determined as being the cause of our arrogance and stupidity and, understanding that anything (let us say) below 150 degrees(F) might be considered as lethal and, that perhaps for this substandard temperature reason alone, lets just say all ten thousand high resolution (Earth) images were simply dumped into their version of a "dead horse" archive, thus establishing and widely promoting to those on Venus that no discovery about Earth was worthy of ever returning for a second look-see. And, then otherwise their exploration for inhabitable planets basically continues on to other (deeper space if need be) in search of that mostly dry and extremely hot planet, thus clearly leaving us, back on Earth, without their vastly superior technology nor wisdom.
Come October 2002, and then approximately every 18 months thereafter, the chances of their exploring Earth is increased by a factor of at least a hundred million miles. But perhaps they already know of the far greater risk, that of becoming infected with Earthly arrogance and stupidity. Perhaps these are simply damn good and valid reasons to stay clear of the likes of Earth and, apparently for another good reason, if you intend to work for NASA, you could go blind.
Sorry about my bad documentation and dyslexic writing format. If you have a need for the degree of polish and grandeur as implemented (at taxpayers expense) by the perceived authority of documentation standards issued by NASA, then that is exactly where you need to be looking. And, while you are there, admiring all that formal documentation structure, please do ask; where in the hell are those original Apollo negatives and, of also the whereabouts of all that film footage of those gravity scaled (1/6th weight) Apollo lunar lander test flights (as if there's no test flights, no missions, thus no contest, I guess I want my money back).
Here is a somewhat better or I should say NASA approved alternative discovery review process, one which clearly conforms to NASA's highest standards. I'll try my best to conform to and otherwise update this review format, as ideas and new "extraordinary" proof materializes.