SORE LOOSERS and POOR SPORTS

Since January 2001, I can recall upon several occasions where my wee little discovery of life potentially existing on the planet Venus was being thoroughly bashed and basically denied the opportunity of seeing the light of day and, all of this was supposedly justified because of pre-existing records and otherwise what I have come to realize were thoroughly unsubstantiated beliefs about the planet Venus, however, all of this was along with a thorough amount of idea and discovery bashings by a gallery of pro-NASA types (NASA's active damage control moles as residing mostly within "space.com"), as those enforcing as well as hiding behind their own cult worthy conditional "extraordinary proof" standards.

I have since come to realize just how embarrassing and potentially damaging this must have become to NASA. Thus, accounting for all sorts of denials, delay tactics and downright lying that was placed into action as to sidetrack if not kill this discovery, especially as anything worthy of being published. I have received comments from potential publishers that could do something positive if they were not being so threatened directly by NASA. These same publishers will instantly print any rumor about ENRON or about the give and take and mud slinging between the Democrats and Republicans, yet they will not touch is matter because of the NASA/NSA/DoD threats. Sort of make you wonder, what it is that I've done, that's so worthy of such an amount of "damage control".

What can I say, as apparently those very same discovery bashing soles (moles as I call them) have been renouncing all those requesting of the very same "extraordinary proof", as that being sought of those Apollo missions. It seems as though, SAR imaging, as being vastly superior to the best of CCD and that of conventional film, which NSA, NIMA, DoD and even of NASA's very own documentation as well as from that of my own research specifically defines itself as our best and most believable format of imaging truth, never the less, such a high standard is to be applied somewhat conditional upon whom and/or towards which mission and/or under the context of how this technology is to be employed, as somehow this otherwise well established and literally certified format of observational imaging truth can be conveniently and justly rejected by those opposing my discovery claims, and yet others, such as myself, we may not challenge their convictions by applying this same variable standard against existing NASA records.

A little understanding of SAR imaging is in order; where such imaging is comprised of 4 to 8 scans or looks, so as to exclude noise as will as to best deliver the WYSIWYG composite and, all that superior capability is without lens distortions as well as without illumination considerations. Furthermore, this SAR imaging involves superior discrimination as to content or substance of what is being recorded and, also imaging in spite of most camouflage, just as weather or even that of massively thick clouds is not a significant factor. Thus, SAR imaging provided the Magellan mission with multiple looks per pixel as well as offering exceptional definition and discrimination not otherwise possible by even the best CCD or conventional photographic methods and, thereby represents about as proof positive as any imaging comes. The added benefit of acquiring all this imaging at 43 perspective simply enhances 3D capabilities (once again vastly surpassing optical CCD imaging because illumination is not a factor that could otherwise introduce distortions or even total perception illusions due to shadows or illumination reflections). My "proof positive" document as well as throughout several other support pages, attempts to cover additional aspects of what establishes SAR as being so "extraordinary" and, then there is the sheer quantity of relevant pixels associated with what I've outlined as being artificial, a quantity that is simply difficult to so easily disqualify, other then based upon motives.

Unfortunately for NASA; What is clearly existing on Venus, as that which is elevated at perhaps 5km amidst mountains, of obviously steep and rough terrain and along side that of a massive channel is the presents of multiple and highly complex artificial elements, surprisingly those being of quite large and relatively clean dimensions in relationship to their surroundings and, comprised of many recognized patterns of worthy artificial factors, including that of a suspension bridge which is clearly traversing that massively wide and deep channel, multiple rectangular quarry sites along with multiple roador perhaps rail beds having further excavations of there own, the clear evidence of several sophisticated causeways, multiple gate or tunnel entrance/exit issues, a collection of shapely above surface reservoirs which are furthermore connected to an elevated recessed reservoir containing some form of SAR absorbing substance (perhaps something like pure hydrogen peroxide H2O2). Other major causeway developments are those surrounded by fairly large and vertically defined symmetrical structures, plus there are a few parabolic issues and nearby is a fairly massive consideration that clearly mimics that of a large and long raised flat platform runway and, as that having multiple recessed service bays to boot and, so much more related. Above the primary channel and to the West; there is a strong resemblance of there being a silo/hanger which is housing an enormous airship plus, many other supportive indications that depict highly rational as well as geometrical functionality issues, all of which is simply far beyond anything ever cataloged by NASA or for that matter from the entire database of astronomy (including that of Earth) as hosting such patterns and shapes which clearly represent artificial formations rather then anything natural. In other words, no such documentation nor observational image has ever been recorded nor cataloged, as that depicting such complex forms existing as anything resulting from purely natural formations. Other then Earth, the "GUTH Venus" sites are the first and only recorded planetary surface offering such an "extraordinary" collection of rational artificial looking elements and with infrastructure to boot, where those acquired images were achieved by our most advanced "extraordinary" imaging truth technology available to mankind.

If it were not for all the surrounding natural environment as well as the equal imaging of so many other natural Venus elements, any detection of such potentially artificial content would have been more dificult. However, SAR imaging was not that of any experiment, it was thereby not a test of something unproven and, the imaging results were not without substantially qualified Earthly known comparisons. In other words, we have the ability to verify by applying direct evaluation against known artificial as well as natural elements as to shapes, patterns and of similar compositions, so as to safely analyze and/or define what the Magellan SAR instrument had captured. During the Magellan mission, there essentially were no malfunctions nor recorded mishaps, only that a limited amount of Venus was not ever mapped and the elliptical orbit caused somewhat lessor resolution towards the polar areas due to satellite altitude. The actual raw imaging at "GUTH Venus" was somewhat closer to 94 meters per pixel, later being reduced to the mapping standardization of 75 meters, which means that anything showing at the discovery sight is actually representing an SAR worthy target of somewhat larger then what's being depicted.

In spite of the fact that GUTH Venus sites offer literally hundreds of relevant pixels, those directly involved in what are clearly patterns of significant objects of artificial form and content, and further depicted as offering sufficient functionality or that of rational community like infrastructure, as might very well have become an evolutionary requirement of just such a community existing on Venus, yet others opposed to my discovery are still apparently willing to risk what's left of their reputations as well as having the continued recoil and backlash of those not so satisfied with the Apollo results. At the very least, my discovery offers the original digital format (equivalent as to offering the original negative), where others can easily verify for themselves what is situated at "GUTH Venus" or not. Additionally, my discovery implies no ulterior motives or hidden agendas, nothing "cold-war" related and as far as I know, nothing ideological nor political, just the facts and everything being backed by a whole lot of "extraordinary" imaging proof.

On the other hand, my recent disgust of what those opposing my discovery have to offer in support of their counter claims (which so far is absolutely nothing whatsoever) has become more well founded, so I am to guess, by simply returning the favor on equal grounds, if it were not for the missing documentation of the 1/6 weight (lunar gravity scaled) manned test flights (at least sufficient documentation, excluding for that known film depicting the damn thing as being so thoroughly uncontrolled, crashing and exploding), then I would have to believe it's entirely possible that those lunar landscape images, all but devoid of recognizable stars (from all tens of thousands of such worthy high resolution B/W and color negatives) was merely a fluke and/or that of our having the world's worst documentation photography carried out by the worst possible trained astronauts. But then, once an independent photo lab is allowed to study and enhance from those original negatives, that black lunar sky should easily deliver sufficient stars in order to permit others qualified as to determine the exact location from which the images were taken and, then I'll most likely have to concur that the missions all happened as recorded and, thus fulfill a major part of that all essential "extraordinary proof" criteria because otherwise, up until now, images made from other then those original negatives are anything but extraordinary proof, as they are representing essentially nothing at all.

However, there is yet something else missing as to my opposition insisting upon such "extraordinary proof", like radiation exposures onto sensitive film as well as man, where my discovery opposition apparently wants others and myself to believe that the "cold-war" was so critically important that we apparently sent our astronauts off into the unknown, not only without a single proven lunar-lander test flight, but also without the any benefit of instrumentation for recording radiation, not even a few 0.1 oz. film badges that would have accurately recorded the multi-rad body exposures as compared to the unshielded exposures (especially as to those riding the Apollo-16 mission). From my research, that sort of exposure is the amount that usually makes hair fall out if not worse, yet NASA is willing to lead others into believing such exposures were not only acceptable but noteven worth the effort to officially record.

This apparent insignificant radiation (10 + rad) exposure issue may become a good thing to realize because, my proposed Venus L2 mission would involve at least 100 times the Apollo travel distance and perhaps overall involving a trajectory and final approach path requiring a thousand times the distance in order for a manned mission to be established at Venus L2 (vastly increased speeds could bring the L2 mission exposure time down to perhaps 10 fold of what the Apollo-16 was exposed to). So, if to be going by those Apollo standards, apparently not having to worry much about space radiation exposure is going to be a great advantage, as I've looked for such Apollo mission exposure charts and/or documentation that would have included the hourly Van Allen belt impact as well as the remaining space travel exposures (especially for that of Apollo-16 which was impacted by an extremely large solar output), however, I've not identified such documentation, at least nothing which I can understand, so, apparently the whole issue of extended space travel radiation exposure (in and beyond the Van Allen belt) is somewhat of a non-issue. Please forward whatever knowledge or leads you have onn this because, I'm not all that certain I've looked in the right places nor that we should even believe what NASA records are suggesting.

Sore loosers are most certainly those having some other agendas to promote, salvage or something worse to hide or perhaps all three, as those opposing "GUTH Venus" are obviously those wishing that I never identified anything from 11 year old Venus images and, now those very same are wondering what in the hell to do about all my questions pertaining to those Apollo missions. What options do they have, besides killing me and then trying to pull every copy of what I've posted. I recall trying at first to nicely suck up to those at NASA and, doing so on several initial occasions before they simply blew me off onto their cult moles at "uplink.space.com" and then, obviously without considering how persistent I can be and, now perhaps it's too late for there to be recourse without serious repercussions, especially since I have the time and motivation to explore what all the fuss was about those Apollo missions and, how that sort of ulterior motivation could have prevented NASA from pursuing anything related to Venus.

The opportunity for our astronomy wizards to act responsibly has been an example of what I perceive as an industry willfully loaded with arrogance and pretentious individuals, hosting hidden or simply ineffective agendas and, willing to accept that their pagan God has let another opportunity get away and perhaps something much worse. Fears of loosing NASA funding and support is quite real, while others have stated they fear outright reprisals. The up coming October 2002 event which should have been received as a honest challenge as well as our best ever opportunity to achieve something at the least cost (because we already own everything that would be needed) and, offering the greatest rewards is simply another example of why I'm apparently so right about others being sore loosers and, their insistence upon standing firm (at all cost) behind those NASA records which are not representing absolute "truths", gives reason to believe pretentious if not precarious interdependency nature is at the heart of the greater community of space research and exploration, which is heavily nurturing from NASA oversight. In other words, everyone is scratching the backsides of their competitive tax dollar spending comrades, praying that their program will somehow survive the next round of cuts.

I still believe, with or without NASA, this "GUTH Venus" discovery is going to eventually blow the proverbial lid off all existing and possibly even future planned missions, at least pulling the rug on anything not having to do with Venus, unless massive new funding somehow materializes so as to keep the "status quo" on track (by that I mean; NSA/DoD agendas and whatever subsequent damage control). As far as the world of science publishing and of correcting official NASA documentation as to their facts pertaining to Venus and, then also regarding those Apollo issues, well, I've already posted what I think went down and, I hope I'm wrong, but if not; hold on to your wallet, and shame, shame, shame onto NASA.


Discovery date of: GUTH Venus #1 December 2000, (#2) & (#3) August 09, 2001

Copyright © 2001/2002 - Brad E. Guth / IEIS
All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: - bradguth@yahoo.com