BRICK WALLS  and/or the  TRUTH

(which is cheaper, which will resolve or sustain the ongoing ruse of the century)
by; Brad Guth / IEIS   update October 05, 2002

Sorry about all the recent updates; I have been trying hard to clear up and otherwise polish the index as well as so many other pages, as well as upon other research related finds, so that hopefully newcomers are made aware of what's been going on, plus also that the more experienced have something worthy as to sinking their false teeth into.

Unfortunately, and only because of the lacking support or perhaps because of those newly constructed brick walls established by NASA, this little discovery effort has become somewhat further delaied and fairly more so complex as a result of my having to defend this discovery on just about every front, as in my defence I'm still not likely to accomplish your polished NASA format (can't affectively focus upon Venus issues when I must continually delve into the ulterior motives and agendas intentionally keeping this discovery from becoming openly recognized). If you should feel the need more formal polish, either simply go to NASA's web sites and blindly accept whatever they have to say (naturally being prepared as to disregarding "truths") or perhaps better yet, is to send me a few billion dollars (just like the sort NASA receives, actually I'll be requiring a mere 1% of that amount), then I would go about hiring those capable of polishing the living hell out of this one. Unfortunately, all the documentation formality will not alter discovery facts nor reveal other truths, as for that we need yet another mission or at least an effort at making "first contact". Polish and/or spin will however help to sell this onto those willing to follow anyone or anything that sounds the least bit official (as recently proven by warlord Bush, packaging is an effective lurer, disinformation is even better), even if there's sort of a braille like following (as to be following a sham, which the most truly blind should be smart enough to avoid) which has in the past formed the very backbone of so many NSA/DoD cloaked agendas. After all, if there were no lambs to lead to slotter, there might not be anything for dinner (as you know very well, we simply can't have that, unless you're planning upon becoming a vegetarian!).

Hopefully all this latest editing effort should allow those interested purely in bashing this discovery to death, as to more quickly filter through all my defensive text, in order to get to the heart of what else I have to offer about "GUTH Venus" and, not that I would expect them to alter their ulterior motivated attacks, I'm just hoping this effort will eventually circumvent some of those brick walls and subsequently force some of my esteemed opponents to "put up or shut up". Harsh words by those opposing absolutely everything Venus are one thing, the substance supporting those words of such "doom and gloom" against absolutely everything Venus is quite another.

Before all of this causes your brain to overload and shut down or even explode, simply because this discovery is so totally outrageous and happens to strike you as being the least bit "ILLUCID", as you are certainly not alone, especially when fellow NASA moles or Borgs at their "" are with you all the way, into the nearest dumper if need be. If you will simply allow yourself as to being entertained by reading on, you will soon discover that I'm a lousy story teller and somewhat worse typist but also, what pathetic sore loosers my opponents have been and why there is apparently so much at risk (certainly far more then I could have imagined). You should also be reminded, that for over 20 months, I've tried my best (initially I was even quite nice in spite of unfounded bashings and abuse as well as by the absolute void of any formal support from Club NASA and, those at NASA (of anyone still somewhat related and/or knowing who was related to the Magellan mission) were of the first to be advised and, all that existed long before I was being forced into a learning curve of having to develop my very own web pages).

So far, all that my fellow bashing opponents have managed, has been ulterior motive sponsored double-talk and otherwise unfounded criticism's and, not the least bit by otherwise offering constructive values, with not one shred of observational in support for their pathetic and borderline illegal actions, essentially nothing whatsoever that which redefines my discovery areas as being purely consistent with that of NASA so called "purely natural occurrences on Venus", as that's pure "bull pucky".

My original focus, which was merely pointing out the greater of possibilities and of affordable opportunities of what seems to have been existing on Venus (thanks somewhat indirectly to NASA), this ongoing effort has been turned into a contest of wit and will. Whereas, honest supporters of my discovery are those either willing to accept one hell of a lot of orchestrated flack as well as being sufficiently smarter about being sufficiently protected or perhaps just unaffected by such pro-NASA retaliation tactics (I'm not one of those so unaffected; simply because of their not offering anything observational in there behalf, so they have pissed me off to no end). I have graciously accepted critical review as long as it was accompanied by whatever it is that happens to support the other observational contention(s). Unfortunately, at least so far it seems, if you are a NASA employee, all that you are allowed to consider is what's already entered in the official Bible (no exceptions or else).

One recent bashing exception has been regarding my quest for some basic facts, merely those issues regarding a potentially rocket fueled turbine that could power such a large (seriously massive) airship on Venus and, my questions having mostly to do with specific fuel consumption per SHP. This is where I have had to reply: "Been there - Done that"  in order to convey an honest appreciation for all the safe "nondisclosure" support, that which clearly failed to answer upon my questions or even produce adequate leads, but none the less, I did want to reaffirm the need for others within NASA to expedite onto higher ground and, preferably as doing so prior to October 2002 and thereby before other Nations take the lead on this opportunity. Since I'm not the "all-knowing" expert on everything, I still have a few too many questions on such rocket powered turbine engines, as well as atmospherics and geology, however, unlike from most pro-NASA types, I seem to be gathering more useful data every day from others interested in assisting this discovery process. Like that from one source of feedback that has corrected for the lift (buoyancy) coefficient of Hydrogen and then brought the potential of nuclear energy into the picture plu, recentily I've introduced vertical CO2 wind power as a highly viable alternative for any nocturnal lizard folk having to deal with a tuly bad situation.

Those electing to apply their snap judgment; mostly as active (NASA mole) official "spin" and "damage control" agents, as to rejecting this discovery in order to best protect their pagan God, is exactly the sort of response that makes this entire overlooked discovery issue so possible, as most of my opponents have chosen to believe or are openly afraid to believe otherwise, that NASA knows all. Well guess again, I have discovered they apparently don't know everything and more so, don't want others to find this out. So, if you will bother to read on and, preferably starting off by openly exploring the greater area contained in the original Magellan image, then as to accomplishing your own enlargements and/or trust the work of others and, not just that of "GUTH Venus", as I invested hundreds of hours into other such planetary sites, so as to hone observational skills and become aware of just what such qualified SAR imaging is all about (especially that having to do with the exceptional perspective view of such worthy artificial as well as natural content issues), perhaps only then can you begin to realize the significance of what is located at three discovery sites. Nowhere else have I, nor will others likely locate such large and rational looking issues as more likely representing artificially constructed elements, let alone of being purely natural formations as previously specified by NASA and their supporters. On behalf of my critics, I have had a standing request for such observational images of their so called natural formations and, as of a year and counting, my critics have managed nothing whatsoever that remotely challenges my claim.

Come on all of you pro-NASA guys; What gives?, If you are so capable and subsequently intent upon going at this as to thoroughly bash my discovery without offering a shred of your observational proof, as on behalf of everything being so freaking natural, tell us exactly how hard can it possibly be to support your arguments against my challenge?   I already know it's damn hot and nasty on Venus, but then you're not being invited because you can't possibly adapt to anything new (perhaps that's because you're simply not smart enough) and, as for that "life on Venus" concept includes something like our living within a submarine for a few years (that we can do), which by the way (as far as external environment is concerned) could be a whole lot worse off then being stuck on Venus, so perhaps you should first try reviewing some of the basic Discovery Bashing Rules before you leap at this with all fours and your tail wagging.

Yes, I certainly do agree, all of this discovery is an extraordinary claim however, not the least bit and certainly not more so then our infamous Apollo accomplishments(?). In fact, there is simply more hard core observational recorded evidence represented to us upon Venus (as far as truly readable and believable high resolution SAR digital imagery of anything artificial goes) then all of Mars and our moon combined have to offer (including of that "Mars face" and of those supposed Apollo landing sites which NASA claims we can't possibly view from Earth) not even via or best observational methods (including multiple Hubble digital overlays and subsequent digitial enlargements nor from a massive Earth based SAR solution that apparently offers a raw 1.5 meter capability). The only explored planet hosting more viable artificial content is Earth. So, exactly how much imaging proof is necessary seems dwarfed by the gross incompetence of NASA's apparent disregard and apparent failures of their Apollo mission documentation, as well as by their blanket disregard as to my discovery.

SAR imaging placed on steroids

What if we were to employ the lunar surface as for that of locating the SAR receiver aperture/chip;
If our best shuttle SAR imaging produces 1.5 meter raw pixels from an altitude or distance of roughly 240 km by utilizing a 60 meter receiving mast, replacing that receiving mast as for being reestablished as the lunar distance of 360,000 km is going to instantly offer another 6^6 magnification factor, then replacing the 1024 pixel chip with a 4096 pixel format within the same aperture and, lo and behold, we're now pushing 24^6 better magnification. What this obviously means is that we can now obtain the same 1.5 meter raw pixel resolution at the distance of 5760^6 km (that's prior to any PhotoShop that can ten fold upon those results). I don't want to sound off being overly pretentious but, that's a whole lot better resolution than of what we're getting back from mars and, that's perhaps 16 bit SAR which is telling us an extraordinary number of things no ordinary optical CCD can possibly accomplish.

Do try to understand; whatever higher resolution images of dirt and rock are still no match whatsoever for that of identifying significant artificial content, especially if that content is so freaking large and entirely rational looking as well as being situated with having a community infrastructure as that clearly shown situated on Venus. Those latest Mars images are truly great detail shots of basically nothing whatsoever artificial, so what's the freaking big deal about Mars? (besides eventually costing us hundreds of billions). Now there I go again, thinking that money has something to do this effort as to cloud everything related to Mars or Venus, simply because none of the Venus opportunities will be requiring such massive expenditures (10% at best) and, we essentially have everything necessary in order to return ourselves to Venus (at least to Venus L2) and, surely everything as otherwise needed for our "first contact" is pathetically right off the shelf, as somewhat better yet, aloft at 40,000 feet as situated in that modified Boeing/TRW 747, plus we already have EL1 as SOHO, as well as TRACE being even better in an ideal format as for technically detecting absolutely anything emitting illuminations from the dark side of Venus.

I believe this form or format of science/research has become the "Duh" factor sort of method. I mean, how much better, cheaper and safer opportunity do we possibly need?

The "GUTH Venus" discovery is simply no longer of any passive conjecture, it is as real and as clearly to be seen within sufficiently certified exploration as well as that of observational digital enlargements and, as otherwise further supported by entirely rational peer review, as well as essentially standing observationally unchallenged by all of my critics. Try re-reviewing my discovery page(s) or any number of other worthy chapters, then take the rest of your medication and give me your feed back or even flak.

Understand; These URL research papers should clearly represent that my work is in progress, thus I am receiving and applying frequent updates and, obviously doing so without official NASA support (not that I have not tried from the outset to re-focus NASA), which I happen to believe is yet another example of their loss and my gain, but then, who needs them if in fact they are so hampered and pinned down by their own past, if not further so by ongoing NSA/DoD agendas. You would have to believe that a year, now two years and counting, would have been sufficient for my critics to support their contention of what's to seen on Venus is purely natural and, this is somehow because they can supposedly identify so many other areas of equally if not more so complex formations (well, guess what folks, at least not yet!). So, what exactly is the real problem with all these pathetic critics? So far not one viable competitive example establishing such complex natural formations as being possible and, I'm still waiting. Please help these pro-NASA guys out because, they can't seem to manage all that much of anything upon their own.

Continuing delay and formal obstructions by NASA and their vastly diverted communities of so called space research/explorers has simply added credence to my discoveries, as well as fostering new found beliefs and then perhaps revealing a few too many other "truths" about our NASA and their obligations being simply too close for their own good association with NSA/DoD agendas. A little more on what I think is going on can be found here, or more recently here.

My recent identification of such multiple as well as obviously the utmost highly complex groupings of those attributes being substantially identified as large and very structural looking formations, offering yet the strongest rational lattice of strikingly functional community infrastructure, as that ever identified anywhere, merely suggest a most likely contention that intelligent life once existed (thrived) and may in fact remain, as surviving in spite of the greenhouse effect and impact upon Venus.

As odd and extraordinary and as contradictory to NASA as that may sound, take a good look for yourself (backing off for several alternate looks), then compare my observational findings to all of the surroundings, and not just the area about "GUTH Venus", but of the many other areas of Venus and, NO, I don't have a clue for certain why all this has taken so damn long to uncover (other then the fact that "Cloak & Dagger" factors have been hard at work within, plus NASA's ongoing [never ending] damage control as pertaining to their self inflicted controversy over those Apollo missions) and, otherwise "GUTH Venus" was perhaps merely overlooked because, clearly I was not employed by NASA, as I would have identified all this 11+ years ago. Nearly 11 years and counting seems just a bit suspicious if not an outrageous failure of their sworn duties but, now that we finally have uncovered this opportunity, perhaps someone should do something and, if you still don't have any ideas, please read on because, I certainly do and, if you do not comprehend what I'm proposing or driving at, you simply need to call me: 1-253-8576061.

Because I feel this discovery is so flat out worthy, I certainly hope all this editing is worth the effort, so as to read and/or being understood better.

The following links and pages may also become interesting reading, where most of these are somewhat older attempts which continue to receive my editing from time to time (often I have gone back over these pages, only to read what I had previously accomplished and, even I don't always understand exactly what I was attempting to convey). I'll further edit and hopefully resolve all of this into something more concise and perhaps eventually more NASA like, however, until then, I simply fail to see the values and/or virtues in being so formally "incorrect", as that currently imposed by the obvious tainted standards coming from NASA, that which clearly offers your most formal and highly polished documentation standard but, that which obviously and so thoroughly missed this opportunity for the past thirteen years and counting, and so, exactly how and for what good has all that been?

Page; index-01 holds several image links and references covering various ulterior motives, by those making an effort as to stop this discovery from ever becoming realized. Can you imagine, they're actually making a concerted effort as to bury this issue and/or towards disqualifying myself. Since my discovery is nothing short of representing positive and rewarding goals, why should any of that represent a need for worthy bashing, unless I'm hitting upon a hidden cord or two?

Fortunately, I'm not the one pretending I am something I am not. Just because I can clearly identify what it is that others and I see in those SAR images is hardly worthy of my being formally attacked. Simply because I've located sufficient other evidence which indicates that there is a strong possibility of there being remaining life on the planet Venus and, also that various energy options and/or viable solutions and otherwise of known technologies which would enable those trapped in such a greenhouse to have survived (as to either evolve or die right there on the spot), however, such energy options do seem to exist as reasonably strong considerations so that Darwin's evolution might have had a somewhat better chance then our astronomy critics allow.

Again, ask yourself this; Why anyone without an ulterior motive would even bother to challenge my discovery and ongoing research? I could understand of those correcting my words/syntax and upon some of my calculations and then that of offering better leads of worthy research and studies, by connecting me with anyone more qualified that would subsequently polish this discovery as a production or pubication delivery and/or perhaps as being a whole lot more capable of merely creating those necessary new classifications for such unusual natural formations, as those being found nowhere else (including Earth), as this approach I could understand and, in fact I have received such (just not all that much from pro-NASA types). With any regard to NASA, fair and open support is not what's been going on, not by any long shot. So, what exactly are those ulterior motives? Perhaps whatever and whenever that knowledge becomes available, that information should be the true discovery, not "GUTH Venus".

By the way; I am obviously not a writer. So if you believe anyone such as youself can make this information more readable, as more to the point and more correct, please do so, then I'll post a link over to your efforts. Some day, once this discovery becomes accepted, I'll even compensate you for your efforts ( for helpful beginners $10/hr and otherwise upwards of $100/hr as based upon your honor system at that).

Copyright © 2000/2002 - Brad E. Guth
GUTH Venus: All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: Brad Guth -
Created: May, 2002

Brad Guth / IEIS