The GUTH Venus To-Do List

( Exactly How You Can Help )

first of all; I must presume that you at least consider this discovery of "GUTH Venus" as being sufficiently realistic (at least possible as for representing their "pre greenhouse" era) and, not otherwise of any intentional or other illusion or aberration, as that being specified by the vast majority of those typically "spin" and "damage control" pro-NASA types. Please review the basic RULES by which others such as yourself can become involved, without being labeled by myself as a NASA mole.

Secondly; this part is having to do with whatever motives. If being focused somewhat by what I've discovered and/or uncovered, I certainly hope that you are coming into this project for the "good and truths" worthy of advancing humanitarian as well as alien life contact and that of our mutual goals and, not purely here on behalf of the pro-NASA team which has been focused upon their own damage control as well as thoroughly bashing away at my work upon every possible opportunity (do remember that NASA and those residing at "" are clearly one in the same, so, whatever those at "" administer is exactly what NASA expects if not directs).

In which case, if you really want to help, I have for you and your associates, several worthy agendas (for once having nothing whatsoever to do with NSA/DoD hidden agendas but, continually impacted by such) that which in order to break into the "need to know" club, you may require somewhat capable if not devious methods of extracting the publicly bought and paid for information, out of NASA and various other tax funded institutions, such as those having massive observatories as well as the many other publicly/NASA funded and thereby moderated learning and research groups, often further cloaked within their higher educational institutions. (I'll include those institutions nearly always taking massive tax credits which then choose to claim immunity from being tax funded, yet lending and/or leasing of their facilities to those which are being so funded, as fair game). Purely privet groups working with purely privately funded individuals are going to be the rare exception, vastly preferred as far as I'm concerned because their results may hold greater "truths", as well as being allowed to hold onto their knowledge base until they see fit to release, profit from and/or share such.

October 17;   I've discovered (to no surprise) that Hubble, as well as TRACE, SOHO and even of every optical instrument aboard ISS, that all of the sudden these fine instruments and of those opperating them can't seem to locate nor lock onto Venus and, even if they could, as according to official NASA "spin", it's most likely well beyond the capability of these instruments, which I find this extremely odd, especially regarding that TRACE can't manage, sort of equally odd that even though Venus has been and well remain sufficiently offset from having to view the sun within the same frame, that even Hubble's magnification which is easily capable of imaging upon as little as 4.25% of the diameter of Venus (thus excluding any solar influence) has become strangely "off limits". SOHO will soon become 0.26AU from Venus and SOHO certainly can't be impacted by directly looking at the sun (as it monitors Mercury crossing the solar face all the time), and yet Venus is so much larger and closer, as equally I find that TRACE offers a similar capability except that TRACE can greatly magnify and track other objects, plus (unlike SOHO) apparently TRACE can capture or accept a somewhat greater degree of contrast and/or realize upon greater ratios of illumination, thus offering supposedly better sensitivity should there be anything artificially illuminating from Venus. Basically TRACE is a somewhat smaller Hubble, capable of viewing upon Mercury as it's crossing the sun and obviously more then capable of tracking and then magnifying upon big old Venus, which is nowhere near crossing the solar surface, imaging of Venus is not even near to being affected from most solar flares. So, where the hell's Venus?

We need to be somewhat careful here because, many of these pro-NASA types have formally sworn to uphold by whatever it takes as to protecting their pagan God's will. Formal damage control may therefore have no limits and, it may be too late for anyone to correct or even circumvent the devine will of those in power.

For future Venus related projects; the areas of expertise will include the sciences of: ASTRONOMY, GEOLOGY, all phases of ENGINEERING (including chemical and aeronautical), AERIAL OBSERVATIONOLOGY (this being a new classification), PLANETARY ATMOSPHERICS, EVOLUTIONARY STUDIES, LASER COMMUNICATIONS including LANGUAGE TRANSLATIONS (for Earth's multi lingual needs as well as alien), INVESTMENT STRATEGY (for obvious project funding as well as future enterprise development), REVERSE SECURITY (the exact opposit of NASA's "nondisclosure", insuring that every relevant consideration is made public as soon as possible). And, if you should think of any other classification, please submit that as well. The more talent the better.

We all (including myself) need to better understand a whole lot more about the following issues:

1 - A thorough review of the elevated atmospherics of Venus (primarily focused upon their 2900 hour nighttime period); @5 km, 10 km, 20 km, 50 km and 75 km.

2 - Further research into the elevated (deep) underground secure environment potentials of Venus (for example; that airship with it's service bay storage considerations). As far as I can discover, until my discovery, there has been little focus upon this notion, of there being anything worthy existing on Venus.

3 - Erosions; current activity as from their nighttime (2900 hour seasonal impact) of whatever possible moisture accumulations and certainly a thorough review of that fluid arch consideration and of whatever is making the upper reservoir indicate with a black center (and I'm not talking about hot tar, even though tar could certainly exist on Venus).

4 - We need a better understanding of those various structural particulars, as further revealed via enhanced SAR and photo digital software and otherwise from any other valid digital enlargements.

5 - Practical logistics study of any sort and, of the rational functionality of those detectable structures and of their infrastructure attributes.

6 - Aerodynamics of conventional craft and otherwise that of large airships as functioning on Venus (range capable of 11,000 nm and of astronomy capable attitudes of perhaps 75 km).

7 - Planetary resources for energy and fuels (including sterling solar as well as whatever basic geothermal power conversions).

8 - Elevated Astronomy capabilities (assisted via a massive airship or possibly of simply hydrogen balloon satellites as functioning just above those clouds).

9 - Food production (think greenhouse, as crops situated within suitable environments), those capable of existing above as well as below ground.

10 - Understanding Venus waste treatment engineering; towards that of recycling for reuse and/or power generation.

11 - Viable missions to Venus L2; along with further deployments of two-way (to the surface) interactive audio/video technologies.

12 - Manned expedition(s) capabilities, limitations and realistic goals (such as establishing a manned Venus L2 platform).

13 - Extended space-travel and mission duration radiation exposure (primarily as that being situated at Venus L2)

14 - Laser Communications   @0.271AU   (October 2002 being our first window of opportunity) or perhaps as NASA proclaims; "another thorough waste of time".

15 - Fuels; (fossil and chemical such as processed H2O2 from their upper atmosphere) as available for other conversions and/or as propulsion fuel (considering the 90+ bar and mostly CO2 environment, even that CO2-->CO/O2 can play a role as to offering a relatively high energy release).

16 - Raw materials availability; for any production of glass, ceramics, alloy steels, iron, granite and/or suitable construction via common rock.

17 - Fluids available; if to be considering their nighttime temperatures and available atmospheric pressures, as clearly being indicated by something fluid held in the upper reservoir (as this reservoir is transporting it's contents to the collected center arrangement of four other above surface reservoirs). Other additional round (above surface) reservoirs are those equally containing something fluid as being indicated by a near black SAR signal reflection. At an elevation of 5+km, what is likely to be of sufficient value and obviously remaining fluid at 75 bar and of remaining stable at the very least 200C to perhaps 350C (as within an extended nighttime as well as elevated surface environment).?

18 - EVOLUTION; this question should have been situated on the very top of this list, as obviously everything revolves around the pretense that whatever and however life evolved, it obviously adapted and, may still be evolving. There is more on this subject alone then you can shake a stick at. Be sure to review my latest conjecture, as I'm certain you can do better.

19 - How about introducing a little vertical wind power, as that being generated from a considerable vertical offset. Perhaps I've even located a worthy 4 km offset of vertical draft/shaft or that of an existing volcanic vent, if this were modified so as to function as a power turbine wind shaft, open at the base so as to enable this basic yet powerful process, how much wind and how much usable force and/or energy is there to work with. We seem to roughly have a 4+bar (60 psi) as well as 7K differential per km to work with and, all of that is backed with the enhanced punch/density of being mostly CO2.

Since we have little else to go on (thanks mostly to our crack NASA wizards), such questions demand a whole lot of practical "what if" considerations towards developing a totally new working model of this planet and, obviously towards the greater possibility that the inhabitance somehow in fact managed to adapt. In the absence or perhaps I should say total void of NASA's wisdom and considerable resources, I've recently located some informational resources that may help those of us as challenged chemical engineers, as to compare various fluids and propellant cocktails, as those capable of converting chemicals into heat and/or thrust (usually both) and where some conversions (such as H2O2) will even yield Oxygen. As I uncover other interesting resources, unlike much of NASA, where you are most often on a "need to know" basis, I'll share with you by adding such links into the following reference list.

Rocket Stuff (of all sorts)

Rocket Propellant Index

A Flame Temperature Calculator

There is enough just on this page alone to keep thousands fully employed. Surely there is something which you can contribute.

From time to time, you and I may modify and add to this list. As you develop information and/or uncover potentially usable resources, simply e-mail such materials and/or establish a web page so that my URL will link others to your work. In either case, full credits will be insured and eventually funding will be allotted based upon the relevant value and/or investment of your contribution(s), so, keep a rough track on your time and expenses.

If you would prefer that I alone advance upon hiring those most capable and, you care to support this effort, then donations, gifts, grants and/or formal investments will be taken seriously and greatly appreciated and, I promise not to use Arthur Andersen. Just as I have delivered so far, with your support and my hiring those capable of furthering this effort, you should expect a substantial "bang for your buck" as to having a ratio of at least 10:1 < 100:1, in other words; equivalent for every billion taxpayer bucks NASA receives, my team and I will have delivered 10 < 100 times that amount of tangible value and, I'll be doing so without all the baggage of those cloak and dagger agendas of my having to nurture the likes of NSA/DoD (those guys can take care of themselves).

Copyright © 2000/2002 - Brad E. Guth
GUTH Venus: All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: Brad Guth - / IEIS 1-253-8576061
updated: March 22, 2002