Bad astronomy states that gravity is not influencing Earth

( I may have to take exception to that, just like the Boeing/TRW laser cannon )

Why should there even have to be gravity "disinformation"?
Is this essentially another example of providing only enough information so that the opposition is further minimized and/or compromised, in so much that the pro-NASA camp looks as though they're doing us all a big ass favor with their bang up job. In my quest for some answers, I was never intentionally pointed to this but, I eventually came across this following "Bad Astronomy" page:

Seems I've gotten myself into this gravity tit for tat thing, not because I actually thought there's was any real significant impact by Venus upon Earth, even though as it turns out, this most recent near juncture was a measurable influence that just so happened to associate itself with a little unexpected tectonic events as well as weather activity that killed a few folks. So as usual, I was just curious why NOAA as well as NASA weren't focusing the media with some of their nifty facts, as they've so often have administered upon so many occasions of so much lesser news worthy topics, as no harm is done if you're telling the truth but, obviously there lies the culprit, as if either NOAA or NASA stated anything whatsoever about Venus, then perhaps the news media might pick up on my research and, we simply can't have any of that, now can we.

It seems rather interesting of what I found on this before mentioned page is what I'd have to call passive disinformation, or at the very most reflecting only the essential least amounts of knowledge possible, as offered in this most recent of supposedly "all knowing" pages associated with the gravity issues depicting how any external gravity force supposedly unaffects Earth, even so much as irregardless of how many planetary associations and, in as much as that somehow oddly the relevance of exposure time as related and associated with such gravity pull has been nicely skipped over (as though time is another non issue), as well as for the accumulated affects of having multiple gravity influences involved and, most interesting other consideration is that such alignments of whatever positive influence I would believe should by all means have included the sun, of which the sun oddly within this supposedly all inclusive introductory page did not even bother to mention.

How can this be;  an introduction to gravity that's offering no direct conclusions upon multiples of gravity sources nor even of the sun's influence, as though apparently the Earth doesn't rotate, so we're to believe that the sun is not a worthy influence nor consideration upon Earth's fluid interior and subsequent crust tectonic stress issues?

Are the gravity influences of our solar system ever that simple?
I've asked the question related to the four body equation of the sun, Venus, moon and Earth. Instead of usable numbers and/or solution charts, I got flak and another orchestrated load of disinformation.

Seems that if a given information page were devised to demonstrate upon the maximum affects of gravity upon Earth and of what that influence could be responsible for causing, it seems as though any half assed good astronomer would have worked out such factors upon a fair number of situations, where this being done in conjunction with another good individual having their expertise in the relatively trigger happy event world of tectonics. I'll have to guess that's asking too damn much of any two experts to work together upon anything, short of killing each other off.

So far I may not have utilized the correct syntax and otherwise bounced myself off track a few too many times, but none the less, this "Bad Astronomy" page clearly stipulates to me that other gravity issues are so much lesser than our moon (I actually have no argument with that, except for the sun) and, that apparently irregardless of whatever solar/planetary alignments, there's absolutely no perceptible influence upon Earth (this part I'm taking exception to). This "Bad Astronomy" author has presented several examples that proves his point, so I'll guess that means that the sun must somehow be affected by Earth and of it's moon and, that perhaps only the other planets are affected by the Earth and our moon and it's never been the other way around. Therefore, we all just keep trekking about this solar system as though nothing really matters much beyond our moon. Now I realize this author is not an idiot, perhaps only a total moron and/or another NASA rusemaster.

Obviously if you're excluding the sun as well as for excluding any third body influence, let alone a forth body formula, then those gravity figures as posted at "Bad Astronomy" were sufficiently gospel and, as good as gold. However, in the real solar system as well as the real universe, time seems to have a way of influencing as well as do those multiple alignments impose an influence that's somewhat greater than of the individual. If conditions on Earth are just so, as in any balance to some critical point or threshold (like what most tectonic considerations and even of weather patterns are precisely expressed as those of a relatively critical balance), then perhaps a few percent change here or there is in fact going to make a notable difference, that is, unless you's some partner to such as the "Prairie Astronomy Club" where skewed physics as well as skewed geology and even by avoiding exobiology truth is whatever their pagan God (NASA) wants them to promote, even if that means involving absolute blindness to whatever is more likely real than not.

If we take for example the moon = a factor of 100% and, if Venus = a lesser factor of .6%, that's obviously amounting to a messily a 100.6% total impact (not hardly worth talking about). But, what if that additional .6% were also in alignment with the solar as well as the lunar gravity and, not just for any short moment in time but as for an extended time period building over weeks and at near to maximum influence spanning several days?

Obviously Venus isn't pushing us away from the sun, obviously it's pull is in addition to whatever increased solar gravity, obviously the alignment of our moon is yet another gravity accumulation (not a subtraction) and, of all four bodies combined as being pulled together through one extended period of time ott to become worth a whole lot more than the meager 0.6% as stipulated by "Bad Astronomy" or, perhaps that is the actual point of what bad astronomy is all about.

Obviously the added affects become something measurable and, if that's measurable, then it's certainly capable of tipping a critical balance of certain tectonics, as well as obviously directing a little more of the solar wind towards Earth and, that too is an influence that's measurable (it's called weather). So, I seriously beg to differ with those stipulating there's no critical associations to worry about. I suppose if Earth were not rotating, then obviously the solar influence would be a whole lot more passive, somewhat like those passive calculations of what the other planets influence upon Earth are quite real but, since Earth is a rotating body of a mobile crust and a liquid core and, the added associations of what the moon and of Venus being in good solar alignment ott to become worth something a whole lot more value than the mere 0.6% factor alone. In other words, my initial estimate that Venus had something to do with the 2002 November 4th and 5th events is sufficiently real and should therefore have been publicized (forewarned) by NOAA as well as NASA, as what would they have had to lose?

I'm still not the one attempting to point for no good reason at Venus, as to be saying that this was exactly what caused the 2002 November 4th and 5th events here on Earth but, it certainly seems entirely too odd that our NOAA as well as NASA failed to even make any note whatsoever, as not even to offer up the slightest associations to what's otherwise been known about the accumulative affects of such previous alignments of Earth, moon, Venus and the sun, as somehow NASA is suggesting by their subject avoidance that this was something entirely unworthy of all others contemplating, as simply another waste of everyone's time. At the very same moment however, NASA has been preparing and dispersing incredibly expensive info-commercials into their NOVA, National Geographic and a host of other spendy media outlets, as for pointing out those vastly distant places of which another thousand generations will never visit nor will others likely visit Earth from such great distances but, none the less, we're expected to continue investing hundreds of billions as well as consuming the vast majority of our expertise just towards bringing you and myself (the public) those highly artificially colorized Hubble images of what's humanly unobtainable.

As unfortunately, even if those deep space explorations were to discover life somewhere out there, it's dead meat and/or it's been dead for likely thousands of years because, that's how long it took for the light or of whatever signals we're receiving and imaging took as to even reach our cameras. Good grief folks, we're looking at mostly other dead folks and some of us fools are making plans of going there. With the exception of a few spots such as Sirius, and even Sirius is a 9000 year trip at speeds we've never achieved, where on the other hand the planet Venus is a local area code, a mere few light minutes away, within as little as a 100 day mission to VL2 using existing technology and, it's damn affordable. Best yet is that Venus may not have to be visited in person, as UV or near UV communication packets could certainly do the trick with more results than all of our space research and explorations to date, at a penny on the dollar. That's certainly a whole lot better off than spending another 250 billion upon acquiring those frozen and radiated Mars microbes, that's if their even alive and if so, they're bound to be lethal to life as we know it, as in you and me.

OK, so life's not been fair and, I'll guess that further clarifies and/or certifies that neither science nor physics need not be fair. I already know that politics is anything but fair minded and, the other word for military intelligence is "disinformation", that most American sanctioned religions are for the most part a scam upon all of humanity (few exceptions) and, that even William Shakespeare (this guy's not even an American and he's taken us to the cleaners) has become just another cruel joke upon all of humanity, that the Wright brothers weren't the first by any long shot, now there's apparently no independent expertise nor solid evidence we ever walked on the moon, along with our learning that the Pope and/or his church was responsible for administering their pleasantries upon unwilling young men whenever they weren't wiping out those supposedly nasty Cathars and, don't even start yourself talking about the US/Mexican war, nor the 6-Day war, nor a tonne of other in between crap that supposedly made America so freaking great because, it just isn't so, as I'll have to guess that's apparently why so many other nations are either standing their ground or standing just about as far away from us as they possibly can, sort of like we've got world class BO that only too often explodes from time to time, without much warning, like when we recently bombed those nasty French/Canadians.

Getting ourselves back onto the track of research/exploration:
Seems there have been recorded cases where a mere 1 degree thermal variation occurring in one small part of our world can be directly linked to a recorded variation somewhere else, as in causing massive droughts as well as flooding. There are cases where the tectonic plates have built up pressures for decades and need only the slightest nudge to set things rolling and, the Earth's core is certainly not a fixed stable mass, so it too is being gravity pulled like the tides, altering the Earth's balance and obviously shifting the internal thermal and pressure zones, where potentially gravity triggers volcanos and, all of which is in one way or another associated with external gravity issues that have been on the move ever since the beginnings of time. Even the massive gravity combinations of Sirius/ABC and of whatever planets along with the associated cubic lightyear's worth of surrounding mass ott to be worth another look-see, as our deep space probes have not traveled anywhere as far as they should have and, no one seems to have uncovered the correct answer.

Here again, I don't want other thinking I'm some sort of wizard, as all I'm doing is putting two and two together, where any village idiot should be able to do that much. Unlike those sanctimonious astronomy clubs, where they gaze at ice ball this or gas ball that and proclaim being so god damn right all the time, at taxpayers expense no less, as though any of that distant stellar stuff actually matters, especially when so many are only interested in those objects that are humanly unobtainable if not entirely beyond the realm of what even a thousand generations can ever realize, while meanwhile another batch of big ass space rocks that are capable of smashing into Earth go unnoticed. Even of the Sirius star system, one of the closest and by a very big margin the largest of worthy targets is apparently no longer worth squat because there's some interest by many (including the Dogon) that have suggested that somehow life once may have originated there, as God forbid, you don't want to be caught ever looking at something that might possibly have hosted life, you might get caught looking into God's bathroom window. The same goes for Venus, as long as I'm talking about those fuzzy bluish/gray clouds and about how utterly too hot that planet is for life as we know it, all is well and good but, just as soon as I start looking at the surface details and identify upon a number of more likely artificial attributes than not, considering the greater potentials of hosting life NOT as we know it, as then all the sudden this is not such a good idea.

Oddly, I've found the same goes for Earthly interest groups, like when certain others (having a personal investment in the outcome) wish to stipulate how things are, such as history, while others (more believable because they have nothing to gain) offer a more revealing interpretation that just so happens to make a whole lot more sense because of their uncovering the underlying motivations and often further supported by their uncovering of the money or power trails that are nearly always there to be identified. Humans are a motivated much of fools, often greedy, arrogant and otherwise relatively pathetic as they're also easily influenced by the greed of others and highly susceptible to being inspired and subsequently persuaded by power, even of bad and evil power is often followed (Hitler, the Pope, warlord Bush) because of fears of being ostracised or punished if you don't.

Obviously, if you're the one in charge of approving what's truth and what's to be withheld or skewed to the point of no return, then obviously you're going to be highly selective about what gets published and, you're also going to see that whatever competition there is given a real run for your money (actually that'll be the taxpayers money because after all, if you're the one in charge, then you pay for nothing out of pocket). I could say this about warlord Bush or I could just as easily say this about NASA, as both have a good number of hidden agendas at risk, each has a past that's chuck full of mistakes and a future that's highly dependent upon maintaining whatever pretentious illusions, so it rather imperative that the dumber than horsepucky public (taxpayer) keeps funneling those dollars into those NASA/NSA/DoD programs.

Oddly whenever one of these pretentious astronomy types wants to show off their latest discovery, there's loads supposition implied and essentially a form of calibrated guess work which is not only acceptable but a requirement. Best of all is, if your discovery is hundreds to thousands of lightyears away, there no chance in hell of ever being absolutely proven wrong within your lifetime. Even though being wrong is not the end of the world nor in my way of thinking all that bad, as long as your original interpretation wasn't something motivated by some ulterior motives by which you profitted nor intentionally caused others harm, as life is basically a series of suppositions from the moment you awake and, just because you think you're awake doesn't even represent let alone prove that you are awake, therefore perhaps dreams are more real than thought.

Many of my worst ideas that later turn out being more true to life than not, these had been portions of what I believe were dreams, where I'd wakeup and start making notes and later research as to learn something more about whatever I was dreaming about. So, which part of this process is real and which is purely supposition or even wishful thinking as based upon that dream?

What does it actually matter as to how an idea and subsequent truths come to past:

Being non astronomy wizards, folks like yourself and I are to guess, because we're being so thoughtfully informed by the wizards that of the solar gravity and of any accumulated aligned gravity(s) of multiple sources is not of any actual science due to their insignificance, as somehow not worth the physics toilet paper it would take to be fully considering upon those apparently insignificant truths. As I'm thinking, if it's so insignificant, then why are so many otherwise making the effort at avoiding the subject of Venus, let alone skewing the truth so that others will not appreciate the significance of what I've discovered, unless there's something worth the added effort, something worth keeping under wraps. Here's a thought; would you be all that surprised if NASA offered a statement that they made a few mistakes, I don't think so and, if on the other hand had they stipulated and/or indicated by their actions that they never made a mistake, now that one I wouldn't believe in a million years.

It would seem if I were to ask a question about something related to Venus, that there would be relatively logical answer associated along with the science and physics. Instead, all I seem to get is intentional damage control flak and/or "spin" in the form of disinformation, as though what's possible for a distant object that's humanly unobtainable is not worthy of being applied to our nearest other planet. If astronomy is looking for other solar systems with the likelihood of discovering a planet similar to Earth, that's certainly interesting but also humanly unobtainable. On the other hand, if we were to remain open minded about Darwin's evolution and of what terraforming is capable of orchestrating, then perhaps we should be looking at what's situated right next door.

What ever you do, don't ever suggest what's possible

When I've recently suggested that a likely occurrence of our utilizing a returning shuttle as a natural target offering up a flying real world testbed chuck full of thermal sensors, along with an instantaneous downlink of those readings, of what a better opportunity there is but to applying a little of the Boeing/TRW laser cannon tracking as well as low level firing upon, just to see what those arrays of thermal sensors would detect as for being an opportunity worth the risk. As then all of the sudden I'm receiving some fairly odd messages (disinformation) that the Boeing/TRW laser cannon isn't remotely capable of lighting up a candle and/or, I've even been specifically informed that it isn't even operational. This is quite odd because, the first installation has been off on location for months doing testing of some sort, while a second aircraft is having it's laser cannon installed at the Seattle Boeing airfield. As star-wars technologies goes, this is one of the big ongoing issues and certainly receiving some of the greater proportions of funding, presumably as for something of value to NSA/DoD. So, unless that extended house on top of the aircraft is just another flying disco nudy bar, I'd have to say we got something undergoing R&D that's more than capable of lighting off that candle.

I happen to know for a fact that any laser cannon can be (especially the sort of CO2 format onboard the Boeing/TRW 747) configured to transmit whatever percentage of power, from 100% down to a fraction of a percent, as well as having other elements introduced into the cannon illumination gas, such as mercury if you wanted to develop upon something a little less thermal and a whole lot more UV lethal as to life. So, technically there's absolutely no reason why the Boeing/TRW couldn't have been airborne and doing another in-flight cannon test, after all, that's exactly what we're paying them to do and, of delivering a sufficiently low energy level shot at those bottom tiles of the relatively massive shuttle is also technically as well as presumably safely within the realm of possibilities. Obviously upon seeing what happened to the COLUMBIA would certainly have been a bummer and otherwise would have made my day as to subsequently destroying absolutely every shred of evidence there was, including flying that Boeing 747 off to any other air base than the one they took off from (the further away the better), somewhat exactly like what happened with all those military operations taking place below flight-800.

So, when I've merely asked of others; where's that 747 star-wars flying laser cannon, all I ever got back was another load of disinformation, even though it's location for ongoing R&D shouldn't have been something restricted. Seems they could have stated it's operating out of Texas airfield whatever or even California AFB whatever, I'd even have accepted Area-51 as being a perfectly logical reply. Some feedback as to it's ever improving performance would certainly have been of interest, as there's certainly nothing worth classifying about disclosing upon it's performance, especially if that's being exaggerated upon because, as that's only of good disinformation worth that's hopefully scaring the poop out of whomever is thinking about attacking us. There's even a chance that the thing as already been spiked with a good deal of mercury, as such off doing us all another big favor by sterilizing whomever is standing anywhere near bin Laden, as that too would make sense, but certainly not the sort of crap I've recently received, as that's simply not remotely believable.

My only interest in that Boeing/TRW project is for planetary laser communications, humanitarian no less. Even still, my opponents can't do anything except push the negatives, as I'm certain they'll expect their fellow club member to keep doing the same, irregardless of the ulterior motives forcing their side into remaining about as dark and black as truth ever needs to get. So, what ever you do, don't suggest what's possible, as that's only going to get you into hot water. In fact, don't even suggest what's not possible, as that's just as bad. In other words, don't suggest anything whatsoever, just keep sending in those tax dollars and pay no attention to the surrounding carnage.

To the INDEX page: GUTH Venus (with loads of updates)
alternate URL's:  and
Copyright © 2000/2001/2002/2003 - Brad E. Guth
GUTH Venus: All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: Brad Guth - Brad Guth / IEIS   ~  1-253-8576061
created: March 15, 2003

Brad Guth / IEIS