This page/chapter is dedicated to those truly capable pro-NASA rusemaster types and, I should also include pro-MI/NSA/CIA/DoD/FBI and now DHS types as well. Of said agencies that are so good at their extrapolating the likes of WMD as to effectively place blame upon anyone and/or anything other than themselves, such as regarding the unfortunate events as 9/11, such as TWA flight 800, such as the USS LIBERTY fiasco and such as going all the way back through those darn good old warm and fuzzy days of our pathetic perpetrated cold-war(s) and, most certainly as to be including those infamous Apollo missions. I should even include those truly wonderful good old upstanding moral ways of our land grabbing via the US/Mexican wars (of course; even though there is an enormous library of supposedly official documents, yet because you and I weren't there and, there remains no living irrefutable proof, thereby a great deal of our best deductive extrapolation and best supposition has to be applied in spite of there having been so much evidence exclusion and banishment of the truth, perhaps better yet is to simply think such US/Mexican wars never happened, and that we never once attempted to take Cuba by force, much less 7 times).

On behalf of our government, it most often seems perfectly OK as to apply and to enforce upon supposition as based purely on their own infomercial extrapolation, unless of course, should that effort shed new light and place responsibility and ultimate blame upon any one of the before mentioned government agencies, whereas only then must you have those extra boat loads of irrefutable as well as substantially reinforced solid evidence (several eye witnesses along with the actual weapon(s) plus a few dead bodies as having been shot in the back or execution style in the forehead) and, thereby any such practice of honest extrapolation (no matters how qualified) shal be as has often been disallowed. How freaking convenient and, perhaps even better then what the "church" has so often been literally shoving up our ass (too bad for them, some of their victims [including a few Cathars] are still alive, and the same can now be said of what surviving Muslims think of us).

First off; The science of observationology has little if anything to do with astronomy per say. Observing is more a deductive matter and even a little SWAG the best available facts, of ones best rational realizations upon whatever is before your eyes (especially important if you can't taste, hear, smell or touch whatever it is that you're supposedly looking at), be that a galactic gas blob, a given star, a planet or just that of your dirty underwear is going to remain as entirely subjective to the eye of the beholder. In other words, there's no law which stipulates that you have to see exactly whatever anyone else claims to see, but there's no harm done by giving it your best shot, even if it's a lose cannon shot in the dark is going to be better off than none.

Also; The ability to best discern similarities in various geometric and symmetrical forms as well as per whatever's obviously cultured or cultivated intelligent patterns, towards that of one's achieving rational realizations, as to compare that which clearly stands out from their otherwise natural surroundings and, to further discriminate these observations to a point of reasonable certainty, as to what they may or may not represent. Again, this is often based upon extrapolation and a good basis of deductive reasoning, just like your getting up in the morning and going about doing your business is mostly based upon your extrapolation or at the very least supposition because, you've likely been there and done that before, so you pretty much know of what to expect, even if it's with your eyes closed shut.

To realize and thereby rationalize actual geological events; such as those clearly supporting the likes of lava flows, erosion and tectonic occurrences which formulate the vast bulk of most planetary images are certainly of what's most relevant, but only as compared onto their associated other regions or areas of similar and/or of equally explainable formations of such known and thereby qualified geological criteria (in other words; you can define something as being natural because of other comparable sites having the same or at least similar rational logic of being created by such known standards, which most likely is what equally caused such formulated patterns and subsequently eroded formations that most anyone would accept as being perfecting natural).

Unnatural occurrences; especially those involving symmetrically geometrical patterns, which seems to lack all of the rational evidence of otherwise natural formation, as well as those introducing striking patterns of multiple vertical establishments (groupings) accommodating highly symmetrical characteristics along with highly rational interlaced infrastructures among otherwise all of the random natural terrain, as such can be classified as worthy candidates of (past or present day) having been intelligent/artificial worthy developments.

With any regard to fair observational astronomy; in the absence of known and/or even possible geological events which have been sufficiently known and thereby recorded as to exist elsewhere (such as here on Earth), one must consider such unlikely finds as being worthy candidates for continued and/or on behalf of their receiving a bit extra focused research and/or re-exploration (that is, unless you are NASA (AKA natsay on a stick), whereas then apparently you don't actually have to do a damn thing unless there's an extra buck or two in it for yourself or the old gipper).

Qualifications as to being an OBSERVASIONOLOGIST are as follows:

1 - You must be at least somewhat sighted (white canes and dogs are purely optional)

2 - You must be conscious (being in a stooper, sleeping or dead does not count)

3 - You need some experience of seeing things from the air or at least from a tall building (from a bar stool at Club NASA does not count).

4 - You must be capable of distinguishing Grand Cooly Dam from that of a mud slide, or that a massive and structured looking 1/2+ mile bridge from that of a fallen tree.

5 - You must realize Earth is not the center of the known universe and, that it does not happen to revolve about NASA's butt nor that of yourself.

6 - You must concede that humans tend to make a lot of mistakes and, are willing to spend at least 10 times as much in order to cover up that fact.

7 - You need to realize that God is not being represented by way of anything NASA, Satan maybe but most certainly not of any God worth his/her salt.

8 - You must be capable of communicating (this is where most any language will do), as otherwise we'll never realize one damn thing if you're stuck with encrypted Klingon.

9 - If you choose/(elect) to hide behind any "nondisclosure" cultism, expect to be on the receiving end of a little critical review (aka favor returning via my lose cannon).

10 - ( to be continued as I think of more items to mention)

How is it; whenever it has recently been sonicely pointed out, that what I have identified as something looking as though of artificial/alien objects, that which looks as being similar if not exactly (with the exclusion of size) as to what I've personaly viewed (first hand), as right here on mother Earth and, that which simply because I happen to have located these intelligent/artificial anomalies, as those being situated on the planet Venus, that as to so many others (mostly pro-NASA types) deeply involved with their ongoing search for their own cosmic truths, which I would have to believe must include looking for whatever signs of alien/ET existence, that according or our pro NASA types that somehow I am not really seeing whatever it is that others and I perceive. Even though, if these same formations of perceived artificial objects were to be viewed from within similar surroundings, utilizing the exact same (SAR) imaging technique and captured at the exact same perspective view of 43°, only as that being situated upon Earth, then apparently whatever I see does in fact exist; Because?????????? (please feel free to volunteer whatever expertise you may have, as most certainly and according to most pro-NASA types, I have not a clue about anything).

QUESTIONS:
First off; Why would any true and honest researcher of astronomy and thereby space and subsequent exploration even bother as to look for reasons to disqualify such a worthy discovery potential (especially one that's right next door)? What degree of ulterior motives are at work, and at what ultimate cost? What privileged and/or hidden agendas are being so well orchestrated and protected, as those so worthy of denying the greater humanitarian and scientific good by their imposing a clearly perverted effort as to somehow dismiss and/or banish the opportunities and obvious greater values that awaits humanity?. Who has the right to deny what is clearly an obtainable opportunity to expand our knowledge, as well as to further accommodate the higher moral standards by which we supposedly pride ourselves?. Perhaps the real illusion and/or ruse is this: could it be that NASA has no honest intentions (never had) of performing in the best interest of humanity, unless there is a serious buck in it (as well as given all the credit in the known world) for doing whatever their pagan naysay heart desires first (like NSA/DoD agendas ot that of our resident LLPOF warlord going after those phony WMD).

OBSERVATIONOLOGY IQ TEST

In order to help others obtain a passing examine grade, here is one of the most important final observationology examine test questions, along with what I believe are some worthy answers. This following examine quiz example is just like the one I had to pass in order to obtain my masters degree in observationology, which clearly took myself a lifetime in order to earn.

QUIZ rule #1
An object is to be situated at a distance of 1 meter in front of you. (a fixed perspective viewing angle of up to 45° is to be allowed)

Rule #2
lighting shall be of single source, situated just above and behind your typically naysay head

Rule #3
As viewed from a fixed vantage point, as this object and yourself are not to be rotated nor otherwise manipulated (in other words; fixed vantage point as well as fixed/stationary object).

Rule #4
This object is initially to be situated in front of a neutral (lacking focus that's any better than 10+ meters) distant backdrop (in other words, no distractions nor size comparisons in relation as to anything other is to be allowed).

Phase #1
Basically describe the object to the best of your deductive abilities:

Phase #2

The second phase of the test is to be essentially doing the exact same thing along with the exception of introducing near background (in focus) information, that of common shapes and formations such as trees, bushes, buildings, terrain, doors, chairs, desk, cars and et cetera.

Phase #3

The third phase of the question is to eliminate the random known background clutter and replacing it with multiple equals of the same object, as in comprising that of the entire background and essentially providing the only other visual references, all of this background being randomly placed, in focus and surrounding the otherwise clear view of the one item being situated at 1 meter distance.

Phase #4
The forth phase is similar to phase #3 but having to introduce only foreign (unrecognizable) territories as the background clutter, such as containing various rock formations, soils, erosion patterns and whatever else as long as it is totally foreign as well as placed typically random as that most often created by natural formations and erosion.

Now, describe the object:

QUIZ ANSWERS

If we were to start off with this object, as that being a lollipop, the answer to phase #1 should be somewhat self evident "a lollipop" (unless you are a very weird and/or a perverted sort of individual or simply deprived of ever having a lollipop).

The answer to phase #2, this should have essentially been the exact same description as Phase #1 ("a lollipop") along with the added benefits of perhaps somewhat relevant size information. Something like; this is "a very big lollipop" or perhaps "a very small lollipop".

The answer to phase #3 should be somewhat interesting because, the object may or may not even be a lollipop, as it could be a reflection or aberration of some other nearby lollipop or, it could even be considered a total illusion brought about by all of the similarity of clutter, and besides, where have you ever seen so many lollipops at one time and therefore, this could simply represent a trick question.

The answer to phase #4 should hopefully also be that of a "lollipop", although, with the exception as to not truly or honestly determining relevant size, but none the less, the object (big or small) is in fact most likely (foreign background or not) still perceived in your deductive mind, clearly as a lollipop.

Just for the fun of it, let us return to the phase four answer and, this time based upon that same object ("lollipop") as situated into a similar perspective view, yet having the backdrop and/or surroundings as that acquired from the Magellan mission, specifically using enlargements of those high resolution images of the planet Venus.

Now again, describe the object:

The answer to the above, you would think, is going to be "lollipop" and, perhaps even that of being an extremely large lollipop.

Now then; aren't we becoming just the little fool who thinks he or she knows enough if not all there is to know about lollipops. As it seems, now that the background and surrounding territory is no longer null or out of focus but is in fact foreign, as not of something which we personally have first hand knowledge of, so apparently, that same test object (according to pro-NASA types) is in fact showing us anything but a lollipop and, not just because of being extremely large in relative size or even that the surroundings are now so unfamiliar but, most likely because it's too damn hot on Venus for that lollipop to even exist/coexist and, therefore no matters what it simply can not be a lollipop (period, end of discussion). I believe this analogy applies even should that lollipop be constructed of 100% titanium because, it's supposedly too damn hot and nasty for anyone or anything to have built such a large lollipop and, I'll also guess, why on Venus would any damn ET fool find a need for such a useless object.

Ok now, you will nezt need to understand or at least appreciate something very important; That you will only get a passing grade if you answered this revised phase #4 something like this;

Object Description:
The object is that which is simply a fairly roundish (globe like) natural element and, at one location on the globe surface having a narrow yet unusually long and straight appearing appendage or perfectly natural rod like element jetting out, as that being purely formulated by whatever natural causes from common lava flows, erosions and perhaps otherwise natural plate tectonics. The added fact that this object offers this appendage which seems to also to transverse(span) across the massive channel which is perhaps in ways larger then our Grand Canyon, is simply further proof positive that it was created by purely natural lava flows and expected erosions. The fact that another random interconnection stemming upwards from the center of the ball like area and which seems to relate and connect to a distant reservoir looking yet entirely natural element, that consisting of a substantially large round shape having an SAR signal absorbing (purely illusionary fluid like) center, is simply further evidence that this was all formed naturally because, it's supposedly too damn hot for there to be a fluid center in anything reservoir like, and finally, because it's so damn hot on Venus, there is simply no way in such hell that this object could ever have existed as a lollipop or having beem intelligently constructed to even look like a lollipop.

If you answered as above, then you most certainly passed the "my ass is way bigger then your's" portion of this masters degree, and your chances of being hired by the likes of NASA has just increased by at least ten fold, and by having a white cane and a dog at your interview never hurts.

If you answered "lollipop", then my-o-my, what can I say except this; that you really messed up and, that you and your worth as a human are not likely to ever amount to dung, and so, I'll have the honor as to welcome you to my club of purely illusionary astronomy, which only records what otherwise is non-existent, as such you'll have to make do as an official naysayer minion on behalf of our NASA.

Even though within the image of "GUTH Venus" there are virtually dozens of similar if not better and more complex lollipop observation examples (with the obvious exclusion of there being any real lollipops) of even more so convincing arguments, with each consideration visualized because of their representing highly rational looking patterns of structure as well as seemingly intentional infrastructure that are simply so out of character with their rugged natural (random) geological surroundings. Unfortunately and apparently, because all of this (according to pro-NASA types) has to be solely based upon and/or supported by other previously recorded data, and/or of having "extraordinary" new and improved perspective evidence, whereas without such everything is somehow merely that of complex set of perfectly natural origins and/or otherwise clearly an illusion at best, at least to the extent of that which strictly supports the vastly more experienced NASA understanding that nothing whatsoever could have ever existed/coexisted on such a tortured and insurmountably devastated planet.

True observational astronomy is all about comparisons and otherwise deductive relationships to known realities of objects, patterns, of similar related content such as rational infrastructure and of the substance we know of. And, as to achieving that goal, SAR imaging represents about as much "extraordinary" proof as you are going to get (short of being there). Naturally of tighter resolution is always nice but, in this instance having such large targets and massively apparent infrastructure makes the existing Magellan resolution quite sufficient. The average altitude of Magellan was roughly 1000km and average scan resolution was thereby reported at 75 meters, although elliptically Magellen traveled through periapsis at a 275km, while the altitude was 2150km over the north pole and 2400km at 74°South and, the reported 618km (at -16°/95° "GUTH Venus"), I believe this places potential raw SAR resolution at roughly 94 meters. Plus, the average SAR over-sampling was at least 4 (up to 8) times in order to minimize noise as well as to insure that a quality or pixel certainty of target existed (which is clearly 4 times more certainty then of any film or CCD image, then X9 for the original 1:1 image makes it worth 36 looks/pixel). The final conversion to GIF format clearly applied the average of these multiple looks in order to display their visual public image as reported to be represented at 75 meters per pixel.

Because certain hard (mechanical/metallic) objects reflect as they should more radar signal, exactly like analog navigational radars detect (for an example; a navigational marker will image at 4 to 10 times actual size relative to natural surroundings), so equally, SAR in effect may have magnified some and/or possibly having reduced such targets in order for having to fulfill the GIF conversion on behalf of the raw resolution in order to satisfy or occupy the 75 meter per pixel mapping coverage). No matter what the final outcome or process is, those objects comprising "GUTH Venus" (in good and reasonably fair relationship to their surroundings) simply remain as most likely intelligent/artificial and, only their true size remains to be qualified. Access into the original SAR imaging data could therefore yield greater specific target resolution, rather then that of any processed average as I've had to work with.

Since I'm not all-knowing, I'm still resolving the actual resolution at "GUTH Venus" (as a personal notation: @2.1° aperture and @618km altitude; utilizing basic math, the coverage area or strip width should have been represented as 23km and, if dividing 23km by 240 pixels = 96 meters resolution, so exactly where NASA derived upon their 75 meter resolution is perhaps an average based upon something other then any average that you or myself might have established). Having the advantage of multiple SAR image scans (a composite of 36) gives rise to several possibilities.

From time to time and, hopefully for the benefit of assisting others, I'll introduce additional observationology examine questions, thus I'm feeling a bit obligated to helping those individuals (lost souls) that believe they have a bright future within any of numerous NASA image interpretation teams. Who knows, you could be just the sort of sight impaired and brainless naysay team player they have been looking for all along and, all you need to do is sign your life away by agreeing to their club of black ops rules which includes that little innocent though potentially lethal "non-disclosure" policy (AKA screw any humanitarian rights, including your's).

Hopefully our next round of discoveries, worthy of such being equally ET entilligent/artificial in nature, will not have been so overlooked by a dozen plus years worth of spendy and too often lethal NASA expertise and, it will simply be too bad for all those surviving on Venus, especially if we'ne so pathetically failed to help them in their final hours of need. Perhaps if they can hold out for another decade or so of our bigotry and neglect, we'll eventually get around to them, perhaps after we've destroyed whatever's left of Earth's humanity (acquiring lethal microbes from Mars is obviously a darn good and spendy step in the right direction).

Perhaps, if funding is to be limited, so as to prevent all formats of research and exploration to coexist (including that of NSA/DoD ruse agendas), then a determination, as to the honest merits of each project which must include the obtainable worthiness aspects as well as any direct benefits to humanity in return for consuming the massive resources, talents of so many others as well as that of global facilities plus all of the subsequent public institutional involvements and of their subsequent investments and, then as to supporting various cult (aka GOOGLE/NOVA) followings. Secondly, the merits determining if a given research goal is even technically much less humanly obtainable needs to be considered, unless of course, if you're NASA/NSA/DoD, whereas then you simply do whatever you damn well please, and without ever a stitch of remorse at that.

Copyright © 2000/2006 - Brad E. Guth
All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: Brad Guth - BradGuth@yahoo.com