Need you ask and thou shall receive; however, one must first comprehend and appreciate those fine standards by which this demand or commandment is to be judged upon.

Pro: If your planetary exploration proof is based upon photo graphical documentation; apparently (according to Club NASA standards) regardless of whatever the nature of professionally questionable lighting and content issues, all is exonerated by merely not having to provide the original negative(s), which according to NASA rules is not anything as to disqualify your claim, as example; with any regard to otherwise hundreds of such highly contested considerations dealing with most if not all of those Apollo mission photos. In other words; the more unbelievable the image (with regard to content and otherwise of ignoring known photographic standards) the more likely the images were taken by good faith as to depicting "the truth and nothing but the truth".

Con; By offering a well documented and otherwise easily proven and/or substantiated digital enlargement solution (verifiable by being able to totally reverse the process in order to reestablish the raw format), apparently this is something which can easily be challenged on the basis that the opposition simply has no other tools by which they can discredit the enlargement process, at least not without looking like the bigger fools they already are. Most importantly, those persons responsible for applying this overlord decision, they apparently need not be the least bit photographic nor image interpretive experienced.

Pro; If your imaging/documentation proof has forbidden others to access your original negatives, somehow this represents an uplifting positive posture which offers the most essential degree of "extraordinary proof" possible, at least of the most brazen confidence and perhaps guts, as anyone even suggesting they need to see those original negatives is obviously a slime-bag spy and otherwise a thoroughly bad person. Thus, somehow this only further establishes the need as to keeping such original negatives away from all eyes (this security issue being so bad that even your own team can't be entrusted, hell, one or more of the astronauts was probably a dirty rotten spy and, I even think I know which ones were, using past tense because some of those were likely on the Apollo-10 mission).

Con; If the original image negative (in my case that's represented by a digital SAR file) is made available so that virtually anyone can review those raw pixels in the greatest of depth, somehow (at least according to my pathetic critics) this only proves that my original was somehow a fake and/or at best a doctored image. By allowing all others access to the original file, apparently this means that there were no security values held within whatever the image has to show and therefore, a perfectly good pro-NASA logic is to (out of their good wholesome primnciples) disqualify it.

Pro; If single source lighting issues cause such multiple shadow angles and/or lose the detail altogether when either sufficiently shaded or overly illuminated and, on the other hand somehow achieve superior reflective fill-in lighting results as from essentially a horizontal 10% reflective (medium/dark gray) surface, so much so effective that selectively backlit shadowed areas become nearly 25% illuminated, where this multitude of obviously conflicting issues only (somehow) further supports the higher then thou standards and thereby supersedes whatever the requirements necessary to meet, if not surpass, the "extraordinary proof" criteria.

Con; If other imaging was to be captured without the known restrictions and compromises of visual illumination (no film deterioration whatsoever from heat, cold nor radiation, no opportunity for any of the other known issues to compromise the original by any chemical and/or physical re-handling processes and furthermore, having no lens distortions, no internal lens refractions, no details lost due to any lack of illumination nor illumination affected shadows, no hot-spots either nor over exposure burn outs and of having no reflective lighting disconsideration) and, furthermore accomplishing all of this at the most excellent perspective angle of 43, somehow all this vastly superior and thoroughly certified image gathering process is so freaking good, that fact alone obviously gives pro-NASA types their concern and cause as to rejecting whatever is in the "GUTH Venus" image(s), and simply again, this is because my opposition has nothing whatsoever other to work with.

I know that I have once again focused upon this pro/con contest between conventional photographic imaging, along with it's subsequent multi-step developing and printing process, as that opposed to the otherwise totally certified and verified digital radar imaging, as I seem a bit skewed so as to oddly benefit/favor the NASA/NSA/DoD Apollo missions (I had to do that because we did go there, didn't we?). However, I simply had to also do this because of those impeccable missions and all of their supposed tens of thousands of images (all of which had been generated from fairly good yet conventional cameras, film and thereby every resulting print was supposedly derived from those negatives) is clearly what sets and establishes their holy grail of standards for essentially everything observational accomplished ever since.

The fact that I've questioned those Apollo documentation files and obviously of those infamous images, is merely because I have personaly owned (still do) and extensively worked with such commercial 70mm cameras and, that is including the film developing and the printing/enlarging process and, I know from that experience, an offal lot about what you can and can not do with such film. For example, I happen know that all film has limits as to it's resolution and contrast range and, that limitation is both good and/or bad, depending upon what it is you're attempting to document or artistically achieve. The original photographer has something (a great deal) to do with accomplishing any preset goals. By ignoring some of the most basic camera and film handling procedures and, of otherwise intentionally avoiding countless opportunities to essentially correct or at least sufficiently compensate for what the previous missions so failed to accomplish, the resulting images can continue to yield somewhat less then expected. However, having those original negatives at hand, even an armature can obtain sufficient corrections (without ever introducing distortions nor falsifying a damn thing), so as to presenting a far better print from those very same piss poor negatives.

A good example would be to simply pull a sufficient degree of stars from that pitch black lunar sky (that's certainly not adding or faking one damn thing), completely unaffecting whatever else is in the illuminated foreground, and enabling NASA qualified stellar types to essentially pinpoint the actual origins of those photographers, as based upon the known locations of that moon and of such stars in respect to the lunar surface and it's horizon. This is not magic, not even rocket science, in photography basics-101 this effort is damn near child's play, yet those original negatives have not been permitted into any contention of being fairly and objectively ruled upon as being and thus best qualifying as the "extraordinary proof" by which nearly all other observational imaging truth has become based upon.

Not that I ever set out to burst anyone's bubble; I just happen to know that those official Apollo cameras and film should have captured many of those vibrant stars and, for one other extremely valid consideration, as there exist an official Apollo image of the lunar lander situated somewhere in space, as that being photographed from the command module, where even this print indicates, without any special treatment applied as towards processing the negative nor of producing this fine example, yet this one very official image, taken by that official Apollo camera and utilizing the very same film, just happens to show those very same stars as clear as a ding dong bell.

Just exactly how an average 10% reflective lunar surface (where within the very same space environment, the above image of portions of the lunar lander was representing well over 50% reflective) managed to not record those vibrant stars is a real mystery, unless perhaps that top seacret pitch black lunar sky was intentionally chuck full of NSA coal dust.

Perhaps this stars/no-stars issue is merely something which is representing a qualified (obviously NASA acceptable) essential inconsistency factor, that which officially unaffects their "extraordinary proof" standards. Yet as compared to the total SAR consistencies and vast other library of comparable Earthly images, where you can actually goto, touch and see for yourself exactly what it is the SAR imaging was detecting and, then compare all of that reference support towards what was most likely representing similar if not the very same content (except as existing on another planet), as again, comparable to what you were able to touch, see and even smell right here on Earth, then how exactly has our prestigious NSA spy imaging technology fallen so far below the standards of the well known and to be expected considerable limitations of conventional photographs?, as something that pro-NASA types (supposed planetary exploration researchers) have been forced to accept, without question and perhaps even without remorse.

Don't stop reading just yet; there are simply all sorts of other criteria worthy of comparing NASA's pro only stance, verses my pro/con considerations (not even getting into that 1/6th gravity scaled lunar lander fiasco nor into the full body 0.1+Sv radiation exposures of the Apollo-16 mission). What all of this means is, that in order to match and/or surpass NASA's very own "extraordinary proof" standards, by doing so there is apparently no need as to providing original negatives nor as in my case the digital image file (even though I have that available). Any requirement of having actual photographic equipment and image processing experience is another apparent waver of those holier then thou standards (even though I have to offer whatever any critic can possibly desire). All this experience is not only irrelevant but actually counter productive, especially when you can actually support your claim by offering the original raw imaging files. This next phase deals with reviewing the perceived content of such images, as according to those Apollo mission standards and, this is according to NASA's very own bible, this content need not be supported by any other known comparable examples (even though SAR images most certainly do, by the tens of thousands of such examples), in other words; every picture is an island onto tiself and shall not be compared nor referenced against any other. Irregularities caused by deep shadows and otherwise supposedly enlightened zones (hot-spots) because of some unexpected reflective lighting and/or losses assumed due to photo/film washouts by excessive over-exposed areas, is something also not to be questioned (even though my image files impose none of those distractive and potentially illusionary considerations). A conventional photograph is but one shot of whatever is being illuminated and, apparently this is somehow vastly superior to the SAR methods of acquiring 4 to 8 exposures per image pixel (not only as to eliminate false noise issues but then also to solidly confirm what's to be seen is actually there and not of some other temporary fluke).

What all this "Holy Grail of Extraordinary Proof" (HGEP) boils down to is this; if you're NASA/NSA/DoD, don't even bother with the "facts" nor of the "truths", as neither has any bearing whatsoever upon your establishing or upholding NASA's policy nor standards. You've probably heard of the phrase "tip of the iceberg", perhaps you should try "tip of the ice age", that's how big this massive body of clues from which this discovery evidence is associated with must represent. Draw your own conclusions, I certainly have and, I think I've got the experience and perhaps a few too many facts straight.

Simply because Venus is nowadays a fairly hot planet, at least to us humans, this is hardly any scientific logic nor cause as to disregard what's obviously there to be seen. Planetary evolution as well as life includes other planets, unless that prospect somehow upsets your religious or political stance, then I'll have to guess, the hell with whatever there is to be discovered as existing on our closest and most accessible planet. This is sort of like our government knowingly ignoring for years what others were doing to the Jewish and so many others because, somehow those pathetic situations (including the USS LIBERTY fiasco) benefitted our current agendas and goals. Today our NSA continues to administer those very same tactics, allowing others to inflict whatever damage and punishment as long as that activity somehow benefits our American (NSA/DoD) interest and, if need be, we've even quietly trained and funded those doing our dirty work (the hell with the UN or even with the most basic of humanitarian considerations). Power thoroughly corrupts, so why are we excluding the likes of our NASA/NSA/DoD?

Copyright © 2000/2002 - Brad E. Guth
GUTH Venus: All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: Brad Guth -
updated: June 16, 2002