Do not be alarmed; this is a test and, only a test that will merely enable others to detect whenever there is a NASA mole infected individual present.

Moles offer but two functions; first is to inflect as much damage as possible onto others without being detected and, secondly, to make their employers look as good as possible. There are no other motivations nor function that precludes what the true responsibilities of any mole is and, the duties as such go as far and as deep as the situation calls for (in war there are no rules). If you are a protected mole (basically a spy) there simply are no rules as to what you may do onto others, just like our "cold war", anything goes just as long as you don't get caught and, even if you do get caught, the chances are that your boss will have too much to loose by not further supporting their moles, thus most any cover up could easily outstrip the initial mole investment (one good example is Apollo and, there are may others more devastating and lethal issues which led us into the likes of 9/11).

Trust me on this one, those NASA moles are not talent scouts; hell, I can't seem to locate much of any talent within NASA, except for a lot of bureaucrats and damage control experts.

I have since learned how and have been able to detect moles by utilizing the following logic.

1 - By discovering that there is no scientific logic or true reasoning that has so far explained away my "GUTH Venus" discovery, therefore, if I'm being bashed by the best, it's only because there is no other viable evidence nor SAR imaging proof on their side, therefore, as moles they must utilize other tactics which have never been supported by anything except their words (by "their" I mean, NASA associates and/or employees which are obviously siding with their Godfather boss and, not necessarily because it's the right thing to do or that they want to).

2 - There is no reasonable logic or fair motivation that should reject any such discovery, especially when us taxpayers have footed the bill for all these decades. (our true mission investment, if using Apollo as any marker, is ten fold greater then being reported, in other words the reported 100 billion of Apollo was really a trillion dollar investment, that is if you were not utilizing Arthur Andersen as your accountant). An opportunity such as what I have offered is simply beyond being any mere conjecture. If this were without a good SAR image, perhaps based upon a lessor CCD format, then there would be some form of argument, but even those arguments would not have fully ruled out the possibilities, so, any opposition is simply another valid mole marker.

3 - The overwhelming degree of certified SAR imaging results (of sufficient resolution) has unquestionably recorded vastly more artificial content, as that situated on Venus, then of any other explored planet or moon (including that of our lunar surface supposedly covered with all that Apollo debris). The only exception is that of Earth, by having millions of such certified SAR images that clearly establishes that which is naturally formed for Earthly artificial considerations (the greater proof being that we can touch whatever the SAR imaging captures and, thereby build upon a reliable reference archive by which we can best determine what may exist on Venus).

4 - As compared to conventional photographic as well as CCD imaging, SAR technology wins hands down every time (with the exception of detecting colors and/or reading news print, but don't even count that one out because, in order to detect color and news print simply requires a much higher radar frequency and a few software enhancements because, ink as well as most other colors introduce pigments and/or chemicals, both of which reflect higher radar frequencies sufficiently so as to differentiate such from the paper or other surfaces). Our best recorded Earth SAR imaging is raw at 1.5 meters, then applying a 10X resampling pushes that resolution down to 0.15 meters. A privet SAR imaging service (QuickBird) has posted a 0.6 meter performance and, that's prior to 10X digital resampling (in other words, potentially 0.061 meters or 2.4 inches), and that instrument is not nearly as capable as NSA's newest and best shuttle-bay SAR toys.

5 - If my intolerance for pro-NASA supporters involves those Apollo missions, any backfire (flack) becomes another sure identifier of that person or group being a NASA mole because, their responsibility of providing "extraordinary" proof for those lunar landings and lunar samples is more then just a little questionable, especially when all of NASA can't seem to lay their hands on not one of those thousands of 70mm negatives nor even produce their very own documentation as to any successful test flights of that 1/6th "lunar gravity scaled" lander. Basically, NASA whant you and I to believe our astronauts had no actual test flights nor pre flight landing experience as with any regard to accomplishing a rapid descent along with essential down-range flight control reality until they supposedly landed on the moon. Ya right! and the tooth fairy just left a hundred billion dollars under my pillow.

I have continued to develope many other subtle indicators, so, if you still can't tell, just hand over that individual over to my expertise and I confirm whether or not if we have another mole. I have also updated my "moon-02" document, which should be worth another look, at least my wording should be improving, even though the facts and final outcome remain basically unchanged.

I'll start off my list of those I know for sure are formal and willing and able moles:

In addition to most everyone situated at "", most of the soles at GOOGLE's group: "" are of mole material and, this one was fairly easy to detect. Besides the deliberate initial discovery bashings (as I was allowed into this open discussion area because it was supposedly not a moderated posting zone), I thought I could eventually attract some valid support, however, now I can fully understand why those officially moderated (NASA orchestrated) sites are so into bashing and otherwise rejecting anything potentially anti-NASA, such as "GUTH Venus" but, if I'm being pulled off the supposedly unmoderated sites, then there is only one cause for this action. I've re-checked my pages to see if anyone has slipped porn into them and, I'm clean, perhaps a little too clean for those opposing my discoveries and, I can only guess it's been a good thing I'm holding back on what I really think is going on and whom is most likely responsible.

Copyright © 2000/2002 - Brad E. Guth
GUTH Venus: All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: Brad Guth -
updated: March 19, 2002