by; Brad Guth / IEIS   (updated July 08, 2002)
Just another waste of time or perhaps this avenue has become the only way of my ever discovering what went so terribly wrong and, as to what has been so adversely affecting why NASA and our vast (supposedly superior to all other) government can't seem to budge forward on this "GUTH Venus" issue.

This page is not by itself representing something of my uncovering any conspiracy, more like that of uncovering a great deal of "damage control" (official spin) that has been effective at defending our hidden agendas and the very human mistakes of our all American NSA/DoD/FBI/CIA ways of doing things, as well as subsequently having to make do with a truly bad series of ongoing situations, which our very own perpetrated cold-wars (further supported and/or cloaked along by the likes of NASA) are essentially responsible for (or how about better yet; irresponsible for) a great deal more then you may care to know. That's certainly no conspiracy, that's simply the truth about America and how we have been doing things all along. The only possible conspiracy, is that which we favor in place of providing truths, as braille pagan arrogance and greed are certainly issues worthy of being an all American conspiracy.

Understanding that once an initial ruse was being enacted, there's simply no stopping and no turning back, especially when innocent lives have been lost, along with considerable investments which are placed at risk of being exposed. As I said, this is simply not a conspiracy, just the ordinary everyday lies and cover lies of, and on behalf of, the very highest levels of our true government (not necessarily speaking of the White House, however, I can't much imagine why the hell not), so much so, that of our creating diversions at whatever cost has been and will likely continue being an acceptable risk (at least it has been that way in the past, a minimum of 35 years and counting).

Any true conspiracy is an underhanded attempt by a hopefully lessor group at defrauding the public (sort of like ENRON/Andersen and now Worldcom) and, with any respect to those Apollo missions, the greater American public (including myself) was simply not a lessor group and has thereby not been defraudded because, we all received exactly what apparently we all expected, as well as wanted and, to hell with the consequences and subsequent cost (the only difference is, that you may be thinking in terms of dollars, I am not) and besides, those so called consequences were in fact exactly what we were looking for all along (essentially delivering death onto the USSR as well as any other Nation involved with the likes of any one opposing our devine will) and, if that even means the demise of those onboard the USS LIBERTY and fate of all those Israeli prisoners and subsequently 9/11 and so on, so be it.

It's not that I can prove onto every soul that we never walked on the moon, that's almost like trying to stipulate that God does not exist onto a priest (that simply can't be done either). On the other hand, even somewhat more so difficult, is for that of our NASA to prove we did. As there are just as many qualified (often more independently qualified) experts that are willing to disagree with the status quo. But then NASA holds all of their cards as well and, has for the past three decades been unwilling to share their supposedly raw and irrefutable data. So, if NASA doesn't have to show you theirs, then I guess the court trial of the century will have no option other then to side with the plaintiffs by default (but then, NASA/NSA/DoD and so on, they essentially owns all of those courts). So; what do you think will happen?.

As it turns out, apparently I'm not all that alone on my dealing with all this official "disinformation" factory. As this well developed site certainly offers a few other additions and renditions of entirely worthy considerations: and, their web sight certainly looks a lot better then mine and, going by NASA ruse standards, looks can mean everything.

( I know that not every soul employed by NASA/NSA/DoD is terribly bright however, their filaments surely must still be attached )

NASA has been requesting that you please disregard those stars, just like that infamous "C" rock photo, this official image example was simply another fine testimonial of their pathetic copy/scanner machines running amuck. And besides, you might upset those sanctimonious benefitted individuals striving as to keeping their true boss (NSA/DoD) as happy campers.

This recent link has been provided David Patrick: "A quick trawl of the NASA archives suggests what this picture actually shows."

"To quote this meta tag "The white dots surrounding the Lunar Module are debris from the Saturn S-IVB stage separation." You might say that is NASA covering up its mistake, but you need to explain why many of these 'stars' are oblong."

First of all, this is not my one and only, not even my best example for consideration. As in this instance, not all of those background spots are oblong. Perhaps the key catch word from David's reply is "suggests", as NASA has suggested upon many such scanned image files, like that "C" rock and even as they later demonstrated a bright white reflective (vertical/horizontal drop sheet) foreground supposedly makes a fair example of what an otherwise purely horizontal lunar dull gray (10% reflective) surface might accomplish for illuminating what should be otherwise nearly pitch black. Secondly, the above image was that taken through a highly distorting window plus due to camera rotation/movement in relation to the background, many of those points of light are somewhat universally oblong, in deed some of those star looking elements may in fact be something other, could even be a bodily fluid discharge, with the other possibility having to do with subsequent scanning of the photographic print, which may have been clean (devoid of any star like material, at least that's what NASA stated about their "C" rock image), but then the scanner plate was apparently not so clean (you pick).

Neither this above image nor that of any other is actually worth a tinkers damn because, no one has been given access to those original negatives (you should know, those nagatives would have been extremely thermally cycled [thereby distorted] and otherwise, sufficiently radiated [fogged] negatives that hold the one and only "truths").

Why NASA can't manage to take 10,240 X 10,240 or better digital scans of those original negatives for safe keeping (as certain CD's and most certainly the internet will outlast film by centuries), in order to safely fork over those original negatives, is not of any mystery (if you get my drift).

Here is yet another capable and I'm sure trustworthy individual, as this time I was informed that all anyone needed to do was a "Yahoo Search" like "Apollo 10 Lunar Lander" and I would discover all the evidence in the world or perhaps "out of this world". As I looked (again) and discovered yet the very same NASA and or the likes thereof, hosting all of the "should haves" and their unlimited resources as to backing all that up.

The only problem(s); Still no creditable documentation on those 1/6th gravity scale test flights that ever functioned and, highly questionable figures as to the mass/fuel considerations at that. I did re-identify the mission 3:1 fuel ratio/mass consideration. Although I have noted the 10,500 kg of propellants, other then of what should have happened, I've not discovered the actual burn consumption (breaking) from orbit 70 miles up, to supposedly that 12.5 minutes worth of down ranging onto the surface and, then back up to the 70 high orbit, obviously having to speed back up as to catch the command module. I also have not discovered any top-secret set of mass inertia compensation gyro(s) that could have helped as to stabilize the considerable number of variables for that of a C/G top heavy LL. Effective solar radiation shielding was apparently something entirely nonexistent (too much weight), but then our film and astronauts were obviously hybrids. Oddly, there are simply no records of mission radiation exposures, if anything, at least not one which you or I can understand (I'm not even certain there was a film-badge onboard). I did locate the photo of the LL surrounded by debris as well as "stars", but that photo was clearly not necessarily anything lunar landing related, as no nearby lunar surface was in sight (more likely near Earth or somewhere to/from the moon).

I asked this individual as to please feel free, as to being a bit more specific as to were NASA is storing all this support data, as it seems others far more capable then I have been looking hard for over three decades. When I get more specific documentation, I'll post and share all that.

For those of you simply left in the dust;  According to pro-NASA types, as those still attempting to explain or justify why all those lunar surface pictures offered us no stars, this above image remains as somewhat of a paradox, as it was taken by the very same official Apollo camera and film and subsequently processed, yet lo and behold, there are identifiable background stars as well as the degree of appropriately high contrast, just as one might expect to see (not the hot-spots nor secondary illumination shadows, even though Earth was certainly nearby as offering a brilliant illumination source, though not even Earth sourced illumination would have been sufficient as for filling in those obviously black shadowed areas).

The reason for all this image review;  Whenever others so easily and so vigorously apply faults onto my discovery, I'll openly permit that to happen, just as long as I can equally apply a little scrutiny based upon those very same standards, of our perceptions of NASA's rule because, there simply has to be valid reasons (valid considerations or at least worthy ulterior motives) why NASA initially and has ever since so thoroughly missed this Venus opportunity (12+ years ago) in the first place, then has only further compounded upon their pathetic situation through their continuing to ignore the current level of "extraordinary" evidence (that which by the way, far surpasses those Apollo images, in nearly every possible respect), long after the fact of my informing them (now at 18+ months and counting), as well as my informing so many others plus their club moles at their "", as those being funded for their representing the substantial league(s) of defence (damage control) moles, as well as for defending their apparently braille and loyal forever followers or perhaps merely pagan worshipers.

All of this initial and ongoing (totally unexpected) discovery bashing is especially odd when I am merely describing what others and I perceive from basically that of my observing, as simply that representing our best evidence to date of there being artificial considerations, as that which offers at minimum 100 times more pixel imagery relevance, of that being most likely artificial content, then of all our moon and even most recent Mars images combined, including of that pathetic "Mars face" and, thereby "GUTH Venus" should be at least worthy of the most open review and continued exploration efforts and, not otherwise that of ulterior motive based stonewall denials and/or of receiving null responses (certainly not worthy of outright discovery and idea bashing at taxpayers expense, a bashing which has sofar not been based upon any true scientific basis). So, as I have been asking all along; what in the hell gives?

This one is for my critics: and, please correct me if I'm wrong but, I now have developed a few lingering questions of my own; as I have been equally looking for that "extraordinary proof" that supposedly supports those Apollo missions. It's not that I believe or not that we ever did what NASA claims, it's just that I as well as so many others more qualified (including NASA) can't seem to prove we ever accomplished what we claim we did, especially if we are being restricted to the evidence as provided solely by lord NASA. Exactly why our space cadet club or lord NASA can't collaborate sufficiently so as to putting all of this to rest, this is what makes others and myself think about ulterior motives. Just thinking about such motives, this means one has to further explore and investigate such matters, which is exactly what those discovery bashing NASA moles made me do.

Did we ever goto and walk on the moon? According to NASA we most certainly did, however, even they simply can't manage to prove it and, as of lately others (including their finest moles), can not seem to deliver those goods either. Thus any degree of their supposedly "extraordinary proof" seems to have amounted to smoke and mirrors and/or that of sufficiently extinguishing whomever has information to the contrary. Considering that we supposedly won that "cold-war"; is this supposedly dead-end end result such a bad thing?

From my considerable photographic experience;  unlike the SAR (purely radar 8-bit digital) images of Venus, those secondary or third rate scanned lunar photo issues have long been offering up all sorts of questionable content, including those illumination "hot spots" which are impossible to occur naturally, insufficient contrast issues that which simply can not explain why and how so much back-lighting so effectively illuminated what should have been more deeply shaded (especially as by that derived from a mostly horizontal 10% reflective gray lunar surface) and, then more so as having no atmospherics to help gather and spread any amounts of this 10% reflected illumination. Even as within an atmosphere, just try as you may to photograph nearly anything at night using one very bright illumination source and, you will get extremely poor yet exceptionally high contrast results (as well as a damn good "hot spot" illumination effect) and, on the moon this effect would have to be that much more so, in other words; only by using an artificial illumination, you will in fact obtain a very similar hot-spot and virtually little if any fill-in lighting unless secondary illuminations are implemented and/or bright-white or large aluminum foil reflecting boards are utilized.

If those photos were of B/W format, then the additional contrast depth along with at least three times the resolution, this might have accounted for some but certainly not all of the fill-in lighting considerations. Since NASA elected to deliver mostly those images of color format and, failed to otherwise stipulate of any photo lab alterations, then that leaves but one and only one resolution as to "hot spots" and "back lighting" considerations, not that there are not a number of other issues still awaiting proper explanations.

Then we have of other background content errors showing equal/identical terrain content even though these photos were taken from extensively different locations as well as supposedly at entirely different directions in relationship to the lander, and again, these issues have never been fully explained. The lack of stars which could have been easily accepted, that is if it were not for another official Apollo image taken with an official Apollo camera and film, that which happens to show stars surrounding the lunar lander module (damn! how did those stare get into that image?) plus, I recall another image using time exposure (again no stars).

The lack of any lunar landscape stars is not about whether or not there should have been any (even though there should have been at least a number of dim indicators), nor that it would have been all that difficult to have included them (at least from any of the subsequent lunar missions), but more so this is about the fundamental need and/or mission requirement as for delivering upon proof of our establishing the lunar location from which the photographs were taken and, even I can fully understand Apollo-11 not realizing this rather major documentation oversight, however, the remaining opportunities to have fully corrected this simple yet fundamental documentation requirement, these could have easily been resolved from any one of the remaining five missions, thereby offering others the opportunity as to see what truly had to have been a remarkable sight. Where a 10% reflective lunar terrain may have been somewhat photo graphically bright, although, nearly as ideal for permitting a little increased exposure that would have easily captured such vibrant stars above the horizon and, more so that of the purely Earth illuminated lunar terrain (of which there were images of equally void sky's) would have been that much more so capable, then also by most any good photo enlarging could have otherwise easily pulled dim stars onto those prints without other distortions.

Then there comes the most basic foundation of establishing "extraordinary" proof, that which can not exist without those original negatives, by which others (including NASA) simply can not prove a damn thing without offering those negatives, as I don't care how many prints and reprints are produced or subsequently scanned, those original negatives must be allowed to be analyzed by a commercial lab (out of the supposedly tens of thousands of such negatives; Why has this ever been a problem?, What is there to hide?, What exactly is there to fear?). Most certainly no trade nor security secrets could possibly be at risk, as how could pulling in stars affect one damn thing?

Perhaps what's not in those original negatives is more important then what's there, such as evidence of extreme thermal cycling and, then what about all that radiation exposure issue as being near lethal photographic limits and, of the sort of over-radiation-exposure that normally affects noticeable skin cancers and makes your hair fall out, remembering that a typical X-Ray exposure of 10mr is that sufficient to at least be detectable as onto that film being exposed, 1 rad represents 100 times that amount (Apollo-16 should have received several rads, perhaps more like 10 rads worth, that's 0.1 Sv or more). Last, there is still the question as to those lunar samples, which seem now as being authenticated as being quite Earthly, so much so that NASA now establishes that the moon was materialized from Earth (how freaking nice and convenient), and so, as others and I are to guess, we don't seem to have one damn geological thing that can be clearly identified as being from the moon (other then by those highly ulterior motivated words of NASA).

It seems as though, all of the fuss over those Apollo/lunar photos is pretty much a mute issue. As I personally recall something about those 1/6th scale (lunar gravity equivalent) manned/pilot test flight(s) of the lunar-lander fiasco, as this was in fact totally disastrous, with each attempt ending with near lethal pilot ejection and then one hell of a subsequent crash and explosion. We may never know how many such attempts failed (NASA certainly does), all we know is that never one succeeded at safely performing the most basic task, as if so, there certainly would have been considerable film documentation of such and, because NASA was in such dire need of additional funding, there should have been hordes of publications and news coverage, exactly in the same manner every new aircraft is filmed during roll-out and during test flights and, you must also remember, over-kill documentation was NASA's middle name.

As far as I can sofar determine (please do correct me if I'm wrong), the required technologies as to stabilize and pilot such a purely rocket powered craft is still (35+ years after the fact) under research and development, and this is because of the continually changing center of gravity for such a small and relatively top heavy craft (further impacted by it's considerable fuel consumption, as 75% of the LL package was rocket fuel related and, that's not even the additional O2 as for the crew) the technology needed in addition to whatever crude "fly-by-wire", this would have had to included some form of reliable mechanical weight distribution compensation, as by that of a rather substantial mechanical airframe stabilisation gyro, as well as considerable degree of fly-by-wire flight stabilisation sensors continuously interacting with fairly complex onboard computers as well as the pilot, which in turn would have been controlling those ("modulated"?) multiple rocket thrusters (it seems our lunar landers had neither an airframe mass gyro nor such modulated thrusters). Modulated rocket thrusting of sufficiently large thrusters is still undergoing development as of today and otherwise, analog throttling (purely man/machine-interfaced), due to various delay and over/under-shoot factors and, even with the benefit of advanced fly-by-wire technology and Earth's atmospheric buffering of thrust and subsequent interactions, as this engineering challenge would truly have been an accomplishment by itself, as entirely worthy of world acclaim. Yet as of today, we have not one user friendly reliable and working example of such technology, not one air/flight publication nor televised program (including NOVA) has ever published nor disclosed upon such capability, as anything realistically usable as a purely rocket pilotted craft here on Earth, let alone on the moon.

I know we're damn good, but give me a freaking break. Pilot training in sophisticated simulators (especially back then) is still nowhere the same as actual firsthand flight time (especially if being simulated at 1/6th G).

I have been requesting of my warm and fuzzy "GUTH Venus" discovery bashing opponents (mostly from pro-NASA moles), to help others and myself locate such official NASA documentation films, especially of those supposedly wonderful 1/6th gravity scaled lunar/lander test flights (there should even have been ample commercial and international news film coverage as well), as the only film I can recall are those which ended in utter disaster. Thus, "extraordinary proof" please, is in fact being sought because, those lunar surface photos simply could not have happened if we were obviously not capable of getting to the lunar surface in the first place. On behalf of NASA, I promised I would post a link to such proof on my URL, which I will still do, however, and so far after 16 months and counting; nothing, nada, zip! (come on you pathetic guys, what exactly are you waiting for?), All I want is the Lunar Lander stuff, as everything else clearly hinges upon this capability.

Another curious issue that seems to pertain to our Apollo missions, is having to do with our available (present day) most current imaging resolution capabilities and, naturally this is only further compounded or even at all necessary by that of our not having documentation film footage of that all essential 1/6th gravity scaled (lunar gravity-equivalent test craft) lunar-lander at hand.

Apparently our Club NASA has been willfully holding out, with regard to our available Earth based lunar imaging resolution. As of nearly 10 years ago and perhaps even more so nowadays with regard to the latest round of Hubble/NSA CCD sensor upgrade capabilities and, if not only that, then it's most certainly with regard to our Earth based (extreme high resolution as well as essentially zero distortion plus digital definition) aperture radar/radio observatory capabilities (the end result of such imaging is sort of like that of applying an electron microscope and thereby offering many times the capable resolution of conventional optics). In order to be fair, it is entirely possible that NASA truly has no idea of what our NSA/NIMA imaging nor massive Earth based radar observatories can in fact provide and, if you should happen to believe that, then perhaps there is simply no hope for humanity because, someone at NASA surely knows all, at least that's an impression I receive whenever I have questioned or challenged their results as pertaining to the planet Venus.

According to not even such recent radar observatory technology (as that potentially capable of offering lunar landing imaging proof), we have apparently had the capability from such Earth based resources as to acquiring distant planetary surface resolution of 1.2 km, and doing so in spite of having to penetrate a fairly dense and turbulent as well as somewhat signal absorbing (thick) atmosphere. Now, perhaps this is not all that great you say, at least in respect to our best (combined or adaptive) optical resolutions but, there is so much more to this resolution qualification then merely the 1.2 km factor, as this consideration is tempered with respect to the target distance of 70 million miles and, now we are certainly talking some sort of serious resolution capability. And, again utilizing fundamental calculations (math), that same capable radar imaging technology that accurately captured and verified the 11+ km elevation territories on the planet Venus and, say if purely by accident that same equipment and team effort were to be applied to our lunar surface, what do you suppose the resolution would become.

I am just guessing at all this because, first of all I'm not employed and thereby highly paid by NASA, however, as from Earth our lunar surface is potentially 312 times closer then that 70 million miles of Venus, as well as essentially not having any (radar absorbing) atmosphere whatsoever and, even by using those same radio frequencies, the final (raw) resolution would become 3.85 meters (or better > 1.5 meters using somewhat higher frequencies and/or simply shorter pulses) and, this raw resolution still is without implementing the most basic of digital photo enlargement, a process that can easily render a certifiable accurate 10 times enlargement and, with some capable yet minimal effort can even manage a factor of twenty times (without faulsely adding a damn thing into the original raw imaging format and, I believe others as well as myself can effectively prove just that).

Even at the raw (minimum performance) of 3.85 meters resolution, that's clearly capable of identifying each of our lunar lander base units as well as lunar buggy capable and, along with applying top-notch photo resampling and, damn if were not well below 0.5 meters. That's nearly sufficient as to obtaining a serial number (not really) and next, remember that even this quality of 6 year old radar imaging technology of which I'm referring to, (by that of todays' standards) would have to be considered outdated and, perhaps nothing as worthy when compared to our latest (0.1 meter) NSA/NIMA spy (SAR) capable imaging technologies (as issued along with digital photo resampling, that's damn near capable of reading news print), of course SAR simply can't pull news print, as discriminating colors is pretty much restricted to optical solutions, but still, with a little effort, such as a combined effort including a massive radar/radio telescope along with NIMA certified digital resampling obtaining a 0.1 meter (Earth based lunar imaging) potential has for some years been possible. We're not talking of mapping the entire moon, only that of a half dozen or so selected and precisely known locations (how hard can that possibly be?). Actually not all that hard and certainly not the least bit as costly as processing uopn one of those Mars images.

As many years have passed since the Venus missions and, I'm of opinion that such radar observation technology has perhaps advanced a wee bit, but if so, I guess we really don't want NASA to discover any of this capability because, someone just might expect a little further Apollo verification (I'm also of the understanding that our most recent combined adaptive optics has further enhanced it's raw optical lunar resolution to as tight as 4 meters (that's 0.4 meters worth using somewhat conventional digital photo software), so let's all have a good look see at those landing sites), with such excellent illumination and knowing the exact lunar L/L, such imaging should take all of an hour at best, to capture all mission sites. As otherwise, let us start talking about your ultimate recall, this one could put those Ford and Firestone issues plus all of those Tobacco and ENRON/Andersen industries combined to shame. How about our comprehending something exceeding the recall of a couple billion or so of those thoroughly tainted educational and technical reference and history books (@ $40 to $60 each with many other costing well over $200 each) and then, many other billions worth of Apollo space memorabilia plus that of a fairly substantial taxpaying community of at least 100 million individuals (including myself) expecting to get their moneys back, lets say at least 250 billions worth. Then of course, there needs to be compensation for all the international (global) impact issues, where eventually lives were in fact lost plus an entire nation (thanks mostly to our cold-war) was thoroughly damaged, which in turn allowed our worse nightmares to take revenge and, where I am pretty certain someone is eventually going to expect answers and perhaps a little more then another international "OOPS" apology.

Sorry floks, if I've managed to ruin your whole day. If it were not for all the intentional and obviously unfair (orchestrated) bashing my "GUTH Venus" discovery has been receiving, none of this Apollo issue would ever have been in my contention (I wouldn't have given it the time of day). Now however, all anyone has to do in order to slap me down, is to provide some documentation leads (links) to that 1/6th scale lunar lander issue and, then perhaps besides all those thousands of questionable mission photos, re-explain also how our finest satellites as well as Earth based radio/radar imaging resources are simply not all that capable of achieving sufficient lunar resolution (when that's been a bald faced lie for years) and, naturally along with sufficient supporting documentation links that will equally provide such imaging examples, please. Otherwise, you may simply explain in your own pro-NASA words why our missions simply failed to accumulate sufficient (easy to collaborate) evidence (such as lunar terrain images offering vibrant stars, along with perhaps a few of those movies (even just one) of those essential 1/6th scale lander test flights and/or, how about some of that vacuum dry and magic clumping lunar soil/dust, that which is obviously or at least supposedly not available anywhere on Earth).

My secondary interest (apart from advancing "GUTH Venus") has become merely with some regard, as well as respect, to seeing that others obtain verification of those piss poor lunar photos, as this issue is simply a good representative aspect of what NASA is all about, which I believe has negatively impacted upon my discovery and, of which I have not been able to provide any supportive review or proof on behalf of NASA. Where my experience with owning such commercial (70mm) photographics (including owning multiple other equipment, lenses and enlarger plus accomplishing film developing as well as achieving my own enlargements) can still not understand how any "hot-spot" can even exist on the lunar surface, nor can my direct (hands on) experience explain how that of a 10% reflective horizontal surface can possibly produce any significant amount of reflective fill-in lighting, let alone generate alternate shadows, nor can I imagine how any one charged with such responsibility of official documentation via photographic means could have intentionally avoided recording such vibrant stars within the lunar landscape in the same image (as these stars were at least twice as bright as viewed from here on Earth and the lunar landscape was at best [except for a few bright spots] 10% reflective), nor why that lunar landscape was not even included in the Earth shots (Earth being viewed at 8 times the size of the moon, the Earth had to have been nearly the size of a soccer ball held at 1 meter), and last; why not a lunar mission totally dependent upon Earth light (if I can read by moon light on Earth, so, if the lunar team was able to receive 16 times as much Earth illumination, what exactly was the freaking problem? and, why not elect to being protected from all that additional solar heat [250+] as well as potentially lethal solar flare radiation?).

SPACE TRAVEL? (what stinking radiation?, apparently according to NASA, there isn't any)

This is yet another perfically fine set of examples, of NASA's minimal concerns and so called support as to their records showing limited and thereby minimal radiation effects upon space travel and, more specifically as pertaining to our lunar (Apollo) environments:

As you can see for yourself, these links have been typically referred to as their qualifying links, as well as so many countless others and, they all seem to get you nowhere. In fact, every time I've tried to acquire such fundamental data, as pertaining to space travel radiation, with that having any association with NASA's foundation of their "extraordinary proof", I've come up plum empty.

Essentially I'm reading and hearing the words of others, however, I have not been smart enough and/or successful at locating the hourly or daily exposures for any given situation or specific location (such as for traversing those Van Allen belts or that of the lunar surface or of the space between there an Earth). Now this seems somewhat truly odd, since supposedly so many instruments had previously recorded such data and, that such basic readings (whatever they were) can't possibly represent anything NSA/DoD "top secret" worthy, yet they most certainly would have offered a great deal of positive support on behalf of NASA and their Apollo missions.

For some very strange and still unexplained reason, even though so much research focus prior to and then during Apollo was having to deal with lethal radiation exposures, our official NASA records of such solar flare radiation readings have been entirely missing, a thorough decade worth of info gap, where there should certainly not have been any such gap, especially when Earth based recording (mostly solar flare images) of such solar flares indicated one of the largest ever recorded outburst during the Apollo-16 mission, where their in-transit and lunar surface exposed astronauts and their highly sensitive films were entirely devoid of such easily detectible radiation, as registering no perceptible image/negative fog, along with apparently no such onboard radiation measurements being recorded by NASA, nor were there even your basic dosage badges associated with those missions.

If in fact radiation considerations are as minimal (insignificant) and otherwise inconsequential (as I've read from pro-NASA supporters; that most space radiation is not the type harmfull to life and, I guess that happens to include supernovae as well as whatever a massive 250+ solar outburst can deliver), then if that be the case, I guess our extending that time frame of exposure (allotting for incorporating a mere foot or so of UHMW, along with a little lead for added shielding), perhaps according to those Apollo missions, by increasing the Venus L2 mission shielding as needing not more then 100 g/m2, according to those Apollo missions, this added amount should more then permit for any extended 3 month journey, so as to arrive at Venus L2, camping out there for up to 18 months (VL2 as being mostly shielded by the planet from that nasty sun, the sun representing the major root of all space travel evil, at least as far as our solar radiation is concerned, so according to pro-NASA types and even NASA, we're supposedly safe) and then eventually returning, none the less for wear (except for a thorough degree of cabin fever).

I would have to guess, if one actually needed to calculate the true human exposure as related to space travel radiation, as would be necessary as to our establishing the required shielding for such a capable craft, one would have to go outside of NASA, perhaps to most any other Nation in order to acquire that fundamental information. Simply trying to obtain such documentation from the vast database of knowledge offered by NASA moderated sites, has been a thorough waste of time and, all anyone needs to do in order to verify this pathetic outcome is to try looking (scouring the internet) for themselves, as I have. One would think, such essential and fundamental information as to space travel radiation would have long ago been a done deal, even long before those Apollo missions. I guess not, at least not as of June 2002 and, as I am to guess; "what you don't know apparently can't hurt you" (at least as far as Club NASA is concerned).

When I do eventually discover the location of such qualified reports and, obtain something verifying such radiation exposures (preferably outside of NASA's supposed expertise), I'll be letting you know, which is apparently a whole lot more then NASA has been willing to do. And, as I've stated countless times prior, I'll post such documentation and/or links to such, even if that in any way supports NASA's/Apollo stance. Seems that 16 months and counting has offered not one worthy effort on behalf of NASA (how or better yet, why can this possibly be?).

In relation to my "GUTH Venus" discoveries;  others and myself will certainly need to better understand the in's and out's of space travel radiation, of which you might believe other pro-NASA types could be helping towards resolving such issues. So far, the only help on this issue has materialized form others not so closely if at all associated with NASA. The outside resources on radiation exposure, they all express a need for establishing a minimum of 1000 kg/m2 (that's a metric tonne per square meter). Really big solar flares (those exceeding the 250 mark) will be needing twice that much protection (2000 kg/m2), unless you wanted to be thoroughly purified with all of your soft tissue turning into mush.

Towards a solar shield solution;  I believe I have developed some workable ideas, such as acquiring a 50 to 100 meter space rock and, essentially hiding behind that rock until we reach Venus L2, then keeping that damn rock near by just in case. According to many reliable researchers, we have a wide selection of such "space rocks" zipping past us every year, so we simply don't have to plan upon launching something that's going to be so massive that we on Earth will end up choking to our deaths on all that CO2 created from our having to get that much mass loaded into high orbit.

A little more on our moon (this is literally getting real old

If any such professional team responsible for geological survey (at least photographically speaking) were to accomplish such a piss poor effort as here on Earth (remember, that with regard to Apollo we're talking of at least a million bucks per negative, and there were literally thousands of such negatives per mision), they would be fired on the spot (including if they were situated on the moon at the time) and, NASA clearly knew early on that respectable skeptics (not including me at the time) existed and yet, mission after mission, all the way through Apollo 17, not even one "proof positive" image (as that simply to include stars along with the lunar landscape), sort of makes you wonder. And then, there is something entirely special about that magic moon dust, that which is not only raw and rough but also has sufficient hooks that somehow manage to inter-lock and vertically clump, and yet, it was somehow selectively blown away from the lander's rocket blast zone, then somehow (out of all the missions) none of this totally unusual (truly one of a kind) magic moon dust never made it back to Earth (damn! and I know we had electron microscopes back then, and yet, not even one closeup of any of that so called interlocking super sand or soil).

For one thing, I would like nothing better then to believe our lunar lander technology worked as well as I at first believed and, as NASA still claims (flawlessly). Even if we actually never walked on the moon, as that issue is besides the greater potential of our later accomplishing robotic flight technology that should still clearly enable other future manned and/or at least robiotic delivery missions to safely challenge planets such as Venus, through utilizing basically an up-scaled lunar-lander variation and, that supposedly proven lander or shuttle like technology alone would not only suppress safety concerns but obviously save our future Venus missions billions, by simply re-utilizing such a thoroughly engineered and proven as being a safe and reliable technology. Obviously having to penetrate an atmosphere, there would be required some added re-entry considerations but, I believe we have that issue and technology well resolved and, if nothing else, this purely rocket powered (supposedly highly stable) lander technology should at least be well suited for the unmanned deployments of safely delivering and positioning my two-way audio/video communications project and, especially these days, doing so quite accurately. Again, why should you and I, let alone NASA, reinvent something if you don't have to (or do we?)

This following URL I recently found somewhat interesting and, for the most part I tend to agree with these images as having somewhat questionable content, as well as do I find it odd that so many other official images somehow obtained all sorts of lighting "hot spots" and/or of such abundent use of "fill-in" lighting (sufficient to create noticeable shadows which simply can not be introduced by merely dodging and burning) and further doing so from that 10% reflective lunar surface, however, nothing within this particular URL was even mentioning those 1/6th scale lunar landers and of their (all-essential) test flights on Earth. My guess; as far as to what this URL author is aware of, this lander test flight consideration never was seriously brought up until I recently gave it some thought and, I have since failed in my research efforts to acquire one supporting film, documenting actual capability of even sustaining tethered controlled test flights, so, just maybe we have yet another consideration that needs a little further clarification from the archives of NASA. I've looked fairly hard for supporting documentation and basically came up empty and so, upon my "GUTH Venus" receiving royal bashings from those obvious NASA moles, I've merely asked this simple request of such others opposed to my "GUTH Venus" discovery and, so far (16 months and counting) still came up empty, so, if you think you can do any better at this, have at it, as I've promised to post a link to whatever evidence supports NASA.

As far as I can determine: that lunar lander seems to have never delivered man to the surface of the moon. I have fewer doughts that our Apollo missions managed to orbit and even deposit (drop off) the lower sections as well as whatever equipment deployments that could have been roughly placed by simply ejecting such items as they flew by and, perhaps they eventually managed (as the Russians apparently did) through robotics to somehow retrieve a limited amount of lunar samples (even though the latest round of 30+ year ongoing tests results is basically establishing nothing all that different from Earth samples), however, in addition to all this, I still hold onto my professional (personally experienced photographic) questions as to how that sensitive film (especially the color film) survived the +/-250 degrees thermal cycling in addition to all that mission radiation exposure (especially with regard to Apollo-16, as this is where we are clearly talking about receiving several rads of perhaps 0.1 Sv worth) is somewhat of a neat trick, as well as how those quality format cameras and supposedly top notch optics managed to so well capture "hot spots" that should never have existed, plus then offering such unexpected "fill-in lighting" (as that derived from whatever 10% reflective horizontal surface) and all the time never once a valid reference star (not even from an officially cataloged time exposure).

Once again; about this official NASA photo (from the Apollo-17 mission, as that indirectly linked by the previous URL) may represent something like that infamous "C rock" image, as that representing yet another mistake or oversight that somehow released an image which NASA did not intend, as this official image (taken by an official Apollo camera using the very same film) clearly demonstrates that stars most certainty could and should have been sufficiently captured in most of the lunar landscape photos, perhaps somewhat lessor (due mostly to shorter exposure times) and thereby not being quite as intense but, none the less, sufficiently there to be seen or otherwise easily to be pulled from those original negatives by any competent photo lab (especially from those superior B/W negatives, which should have produced nearly three times the resolution as well as twice if not four times the tonal/contrast depth or range). What can one say about this following image but "OOPS!".

The following clips are merely some fairly old excerpts and context as taken from my "UPLINK.SPACE.COM" postings. This is where everything went down hill, as first being rejected by NASA and, I've since lost much faith with my original perceptions of NASA as well as with respect to several other government agencies and, all of this was long before 9/11.

Shortly after the first par of of 2001, the site was only utilized after several weeks of failed attempts at communicating this Venus discovery directly onto and thereby into NASA, as this "" was where they (NASA) initially referred me, only that I later discovered this site was truly that of a NASA mole/cult site and, otherwise to become a total waste of time. Obviously others already knew this, but, I guess for my initiation, I had to discover this one for myself.

From here on, obviously all of this page is solely that of my point of view (as mole free as I can make it), as I am to be including many worthy considerations which may help to explain (at least the way I see it) what could very will have happened with regard to those Apollo missions and, how this must be impacting the recognition of "GUTH Venus" plus, some discussions as pertaining to Venus and, even an idea or two about our HUBBLE Space Telescope performance, that which could and perhaps should have been utilized in order to put an end to any questions regarding those Apollo missions. In addition, I've recently learned of radio imaging capability that as of ten years ago could easily have resolved 3.85 raw meters at worst and, more likely these days as something closer to half that amount, plus digital image resampling that could pull a resolution of well below 0.385 meter.

Much of this review is necessary, only because of those at were so unexpectantly intense upon their suppressing (bashing) absolutely everything even the least bit remotely related to anything "NASA negative" so, from that of my responses, here are many of my support and/or uplink reply files, as from those so called open discussions, that frankly were initially prompted purely by those NASA moles (as I could not then and more so now believe how obviously one sided and how totally non-objective and otherwise obstructive their comments had become). I had decided to pull out and essentially re-post from that cult site, as I felt this effort was only necessary so as to stop others and myself from wasting time as well as towards keeping those remaining (braille NASA supporters) from further hemorrhaging and, otherwise to more properly deal with my Venus discovery (always the prime issue that my original discussion was about), but, I'll just bet anything, even this effort will somewhat fail to eliminate the official cult opposition and interference (a total lack of any truly objective qualities, other then damage control, seems to be the standard if not their obligation of each and every one of their days) and, the only problem I really had with all this was that most of these NASA moles offered no real name nor emails or phone numbers (I seem to have not a problem with telling the truth as well as giving out my true name, email and phone number so, I wonder why it is, that those opposing my views don't reciprocate?), what do they have to hide from? and, whom are they working for and/or protecting?.

First things first: understand this effort was merely in response to every loyal yet obviously braille NASA supporters that must think only about opposing every issue as though it were some sort of conspiracy at every turn and, as otherwise being loyal to their death bed about supporting their Club NASA. It seems this obviously warped (braille) loyalty is the sort of stuff that produces and further supports any true conspiracy but then, what do I know.

About any NASA conspiracy; NO such thing, NOT here, NOT ever, at least not for my sake nor that of nearly every other American I've ever spoken with. As far as I can determine, we (the Apollo mission) eventually made it safely to the moon, we at least orbited and deployed all sorts of equipment and, possibly even landed just as NASA states (if perhaps not accomplishing this goal until their final mission). Unfortunately, I, as well as so many others (outside as well as inside of Club NASA) simply have not one solid irrefutable piece of evidence (other then what had been filtered through Club NASA), so, for now we must accept their word for it, but remember, we don't all have to believe everything. Most if not all of the so called independent supporting evidence sources, such as from those utilizing laser reflectors and even some extremely crude optical sightings of supposedly remaining equipment, seem to leave just enough relevance out, as it is entirely possible that everything lunar could have been achieved (least costly, as well as so much safer for our flight crews) if such instruments were merely deposited to the lunar surface without an actual manned landing. Let us all hope that some day others will obtain the final "true" story and, that day is simply not now.

I was in my early 20's when this NASA/Apollo stuff all began. I thought it was more then just great, but even I understood pretty much that our primary mission was to break the Soviet Union's back, through further draining of their resources and/or by whatever means, including that of pushing the technological limits, by effectively out producing spy hardware and/or the of mere threat of deployment thereof or at least imposing the illusion thereof (illusions are nearly always cheaper then the real thing, as long as you can get away with it), including that of our having the ultimate spy and preemptive launch advantage safely controlled from the lunar surface, as at the time, this threat was suggested by the mere threat of getting our men to the moon first.

I truly believe this: It was widely understood and accepted that all of our national space effort was to become NASA's responsibility and, then to accomplish this as expeditiously as possible, be damn the cost (at least at first). This was as close to any declared war as we were ever going to see between the US and Russia and, in fact it was a formally declared war without our having to use bullets. Myself, as well as most everyone else (as I understood this obviously included our highest levels of government) were all supporting it and, as far as I could tell, there was never any secret about that issue, as it was pure and simple, clearly it was them or us. Therefore, how can that issue ever become a conspiracy, it simply can not, however, the ongoing cover up of the results can, and I believe this has in fact developed into a conspiracy, along with all sorts of hidden NSA/DoD agendas plus some not-so-nice outcomes. If my saying so makes me the bad guy, then what does that make our true NSA/DoD agendas into.

If there could be any concept of any "conspiracy", this would and should fall squarely upon the shoulders of our elite military forces and our NSA as well as their (for profit) corporate partners, most likely including that of our commanders and all the way up to the presidency, which simply had to have orchestrated and perpetrated the ultimate hoax that Russia (USSR) was somehow a threat. Unfortunately, as we have all later discovered (too late to save 10's of thousands of Soviet civilians and a few Americans), this was apparently not so, not in any way, shape or form was Russia/USSR even remotely ever considering attacking and over-throwing our country (defending from, yes, we apparently had them scared to death, but fortunately not to any point of an unprovoked attack). Now that cold-was is one hell of a conspiracy, and one obviously against all of humanity. Now that Russia has been so thoroughly destabilised, we truly have created some really big global problems from loose cannons of powerful and generally pissed off (mostly at America) factions, some loaded to the hilt with their own nuclear weapons, biological agents and ultra fast torpedoes and, I believe we all know exactly whom to thank for all that.

Fortunately, I believe we still have the Russians beat hands down and, most likely again without us ever firing a shot. All we have to do in order to obtain their total surrender is to launch our fleet of self-destructing OSPREY's over their most populated cities and, to fly a few hot-shot passes through their mountain resorts (preferably wherever there are suspended gondolas) and, otherwise we simply need to entertain a bunch of girl friends onboard our joy-riding fleet of hull-chopping submarines within the vicinity of their shipping lanes. In no time at all, we'll have them begging us to take whatever we want, just as long as we leave.

Another reminder; this following reply (as most other comments) are in regard to my critical views, some over anti-moon/Apollo statements which I specifically directed towards those NASA moles at that were so negative and intentionally spiteful over my "GUTH Venus" discovery. Much of this also occurred early in 2001, four or five months prior to 9/11.

In all of my postings, I never once brought up anything stating or otherwise imposing a "NASA conspiracy" however, a lot of you (so called external NASA supporter) guys sure did, over and over. If there is any conspiracy it has little to do with Apollo and perhaps everything to do with NSA/DoD and their cold-war.

Regarding Apollo missions: I also never once stated nor proclaimed we never/ever went to the moon, and for that matter, I never stated that we (NASA) never/ever landed on the moon, but again, you so called external NASA (mole) guys did. I feel it is entirely possible that perhaps the last one or two of our landings indeed happened, however, if that of our best teams of lawyers were to be given the task of proving it, well, I am not all that certain those relatively piss-poor photos would hold up, and below is some of why I think that way;

Even the best official time exposure(s) supposedly imaged from the lunar surface simply offers absolutely no possible identifying stellar information. And, those lunar command module (70 mile) from orbit images of the lunar lander sites, these simply represent a mere speck in the center of a reported format negative (where apparently those original negatives are no longer available for serious enlargements), these specks being essentially useless as far as offering not even a tenth (hell, not even 1%) the identifiable information as what I have to show at "GUTH Venus". So, perhaps you guys should stop doing that, stop insisting those Apollo images are so damn great and thereby in any way usable as any form of documentation proof, or at least acquire a little humor about all this, because, we essentially won the "cold war" and, was this not the entire point.

A new HUBBLE perspective:

I somehow made the error of thinking our Hubble SST could somehow be utilized to briefly and effectively capture sufficient numbers of digital images of those Apollo landing sites. I thought that the incredible images we've all been seeing of minute detail of deep space were excellent examples of the capabilities and resolution potential.

I recall being informed (I believe intentionally misinformed) by those NASA moles, with any regard to Hubble image resolution, essentially that it apparently makes absolutely no difference whatsoever as to how many pixels are represented on that Hubble optical (CCD) sensor, I am told the resulting lunar resolution (of supposedly 80 meters at best) is and/or would be essentially the exact same as if a 1 pixel/cm CCD verses a 1 million or perhaps even a billion pixel CCD sensor (all this response is obviously absolutely false and obviously intentionally misleading) and, I was furthermore being intentionally misinformed of that of digital mastering or over-laying digital images (the combining of multiple digital exposures) offers nothing as to improving upon potential resolution (such as pertaining to my question on imaging various Apollo items remaining on the lunar surface) and, so why is there all the objection and the need as to even challenge this question, as well as to applying intentional deception as to resolving my thoughts regarding CCD image mastering?

Sorry mole-guys, for some reason I did not buy your responses. As for one thing, what can be easily accomplished with digital imaging is simply altogether different then of standard film. For one thing, a series of digital images can be overlayed so as to basically enhance and/or achieve greater net resolution (offering the equivalent of having considerably more raw CCD sensor pixels) and, another issue is that each image as well as of any combined result can further be re-sampled or reliably enlarged by at least a factor of 5 (10X is fully supported by the digital software industry and, I've seen and accomplished 20X without my experiencing distortions nor seeing one damn unexpected thing added or subtracted). Each digital image can also be altered by otherwise condensing (sort of focusing) each pixel represented, by a factor of 10, thus occupying merely 10% of the original pixel area and, this is not simply reducing the entire image, but of maintaining the overall original coverage as well as print size, thus allowing sufficient paper space for the 100 other similar digital overlays to be properly re-introduced and, thereby carefully combined so as to formulate the final image and, this is without ever modifying one damn raw pixel representation (pixel resizing is simply not that of modifying the raw data and, unlike film, this process can always be easily reversed for total verification). Accomplishing this by hand would represent a forever task, but thanks to computers and photo software, this concept is simply not all that much of a challenge but again, apparently I'm wrong again, as anything that could require technical expertise and actual work is apparently always a problem when speaking of any standard by which NASA needs to perform against.

Another optical resolution issue is; that I believe the old NSA image sensor is about to be upgraded and, upon this happening, the Hubble ST will therefore obtain access to utilizing the likes of the previous NSA imaging sensor, thus offering a 12.6 fold resolution improvement above what NASA previously had direct/public access to and, then of course the NSA teams will be enjoying their upgraded sensor which I'm certain maintains a 10 fold advantage over their original (perhaps Hubble is now fully capable of reading news print). Even this old NSA grade CCD represents a tremendous resolution boost for NASA, one that should enable the Hubble ST (for the publicly accessible imaging) to finally capture the lunar surface at perhaps 6.5 meter > multiple-overlay 0.5 meter or better resolution, especially when this is applied at nearest possible lunar orbit (230,000 miles) plus that of our knowing exactly where to pinpoint the Apollo 11, 12, 14, and so on, lander(s) as well as their nearby equipment remains. By introducing a 12.6 fold photo-imaging improvement, as well as having more then sufficient imaging intensity (even if this imaging effort were restricted to areas of Earth's illumination which was reported at 16 times that of our lunar illumination) so as to relatively quickly acquire perhaps as many as 100 consecutive overlay images, images which can then be assembled or mastered so as to provide the best possible resolution (perhaps as tight as 0.1 meter), at which point we should all be able to clearly establish (once and for all) that NASA (regarding each and every one of their Apollo missions) in fact simply had the world's worst photographers as astronauts, along with their willfully inadequate camera equipment and piss-poor film to boot, which would nearly explain everything (almost, but not quite everything).

Regarding NASA and, their doing the job they were charged with:

I do recall stating something to the affect of NASA being under rather substantial pressures, having the overall considerable responsibility with regard to supporting our "cold-war and subsequent space-race" up against the USSR. For some reason, you braille guys want me as well as all others believing that your God (NASA) could have had nothing whatsoever to do with any such cold-war issues. OK, you are probably too young to recall such or too old for normal brain functions or it's possible NASA simply has you guys overly sedated on E-Prozac.

As you can tell, in my speaking to NASA moles, I am not all that familiar with your relatively new found religion but, a few others and I (sighted as well as truly blind individuals) might just tend to believe that you've gone a bit over the edge. Faith is one thing, blind faith is quite another. For God's sake, get a grip! The world as you and I know it will simply not end if the "truth" ever comes out, just an offal lot of truly pissed off taxpayers to deal with.

LIFE on Venus, and dealing with those braille NASA supporters:

Now, here is where I mistakenly thought, that because I was initially referred to this uplink cult by NASA, that was somehow there to contribute something, anything that humanity can truly utilize. In stead, all I've seen is posturing, bully-ism and now with regard to the "GUTH Venus" discovery, a total outright denial of the down right obvious. If that's not proof something is rotten to the core, I guess I don't know what is.

As an outsider, I have to wonder what it's all about, especially when we can't actually go to so many of these places to confirm anything, with the apparent exception of our moon and, there are questions remaining about that. This leaves us outsiders (including myself) with our own interpreting of the information and images from which NASA controls and/or filters all resources and offers very few options at that, and so, research and observational exploration is what I thought most ( members do, perhaps further interpret and even contribute research and, I mistakenly thought that possibly some of you are exceptionally good at that, but this is apparently not so. I'm still waiting for anyone of them to counter with one of their exploration images, as an example, just one example which so well supports their argument(s) that "nothing whatsoever exist at GUTH Venus", as showing equally complex looking and otherwise very artificial looking elements that can be clearly defined as formed via natural events. It has been 11 months and counting and, still nothing. So what gives?.

On my behalf, I've handed over (on a proverbial silver platter) the first and best known to date imaging of a potential life force which obviously existed or possibly still exist on Venus, and you pathetic spoil sports can't see anything. This again is where the term "braille" needs to be implied (with the obvious exclusion of those truly blind, which even they could at least feel that this degree of complex structural elements are significantly out of the ordinary and thereby totally unlike any other images of Venus, especially when there is no link of even exotic natural causes associated).

I also happen to feel this discovery could be the most valuable contribution to date, one which NASA somehow managed to overlook and which you guys (loyal braille NASA supporters) seem willing to take this discovery to your death bed (talk about your non-disclosure crap, you guys seem to have that beat all to hell, either too arrogant or stupid to recognize even the obvious, perhaps better phrased as "blinded by the NASA light" and therefore you can't possibly offer anything of independent value and, the ultimate non-disclosure solution is therefore yourself, no enforcement required).

So, I would suppose, if there were to be another mission to Venus and, if this were to be a landing mission, where exactly would you guys pick as the location to be, keeping in mind that our bankrupt NASA has relatively limited resources these days (essentially broke for the next decade and, laying off anyone that can't return a favor and especially anyone considered a non-team-player), without nearly as much taxpayer support as in the Apollo missions and, partly because we are no longer in that cold-war as with regard to the Apollo missions and, when that of going off to Venus could be far more difficult then pretending at going to the moon and, thereby much costlier to fake, and why would anyone, especially NASA, ever want to fake anything about Venus is beyond my abilities (where is the cold-war or any other motives?), but then you guys seem to think that would have to be the case as with regard to what I clearly have discovered, because you have all clearly stated, over and over, "nothing is there except rock, lava channels and erosion, all of which is to be commonly found elsewhere". Boy, talking again about the blind leading the blind and, that non-disclosure crap has nothing on you uplink guys.

Looking way back, once again, at some NASA/CIA/NSA/DoD possibilities;

This NASA/CIA/NSA/DoD thing (as far as the original Apollo missions) is still not any conspiracy, at least not in by book and if at all, it was simply and exctly what was called for in order for American interest to bring about the demise of the USSR. As within any declared WAR, soldiers are to be lost as well as are civilians to become casualties.. No surprises here.. And by the way; in war (including cold war) there are no rules, anything goes just as long as you don't get caught, and sometimes even if you do. To this there are more examples then you can possibly shake a stick at; just examine the unprovoked attacks on the USS STARK and then even more so upon the USS LIBERTY (what pathetic events), for all those that needlessly died on board these ships, plus many other thousands if you would care to include those prisoners the Israeli were murdering (seems the Israeli desperately want our technology and intelligence support along with whatever added military power, just as long as no one is keeping track of what's really happening) and, here the so called "good guys" essentially got away with everything, including mass murder. Then there is the intentional downing of the Russian SST (accomplished by the British and French plus we apparently knew of everything that transpired, but did nothing to stop it nor did we disclose what really happened), costing many innocent civilians and obviously the flight crew their lives, not to forget the opportunity lost of Russia evef producing a commercially viable as well as an international aircraft (what a multi-billion-dollar damaging economic blow, and again, without ever actually firing a shot).

Now I ask; if you had one of those extremely powerful NASA/NSA/DoD positions, effectively in charge of all the bucks and/or to whom if any of this was to be shared, and should something start going terribly wrong with your mission(s); how far would you have gone, as being the up-standing sworn to obey American soldier that you are, exactly what would you have done?, Give up?, or perhaps cave in and accept the fact that you and your closest buddies had failed your mission and your country and thereby were going to be getting the ax, thereby losing all of your powers, prestige and personal worth or, would you have put up a good fight?. I myself wonder about this from time to time.

OK, you might not have gone to such extremes and, would have willingly accepted your faith, as well as sealed that of your closest buddies. Then I'll just bet you probably have never been corrupted by power and unlimited wealth and/or the total control thereof.

Just for argument; how would a powerful NASA/CIA/NSA/DoD person have handled a bad, going-worse every day, situation (such as our initial space race including those Apollo missions), especially when so much was at stake and already at such tremendous investment, and then how far might this relatively tight inside group go in order to protect their house of cards, and yet obtain their ultimate goal. Remember this; NASA/CIA/NSA/DoD had overwhelming support of the taxpayers, including myself up until recently, plus that of essentially all military branches, our SS and NSA forces and most likely that of the presidency. Don't you think!

Don't forget that, all this back and forth discussion was being delivered early in 2001 and, that means all of this discussion was several months prior to 9/11

Face some facts here, we only had to spend a few hundred billion in order to essentially destroy the very fabric of the USSR, and in order to accomplish all this (without bullets) we may have only needed to forfeit a few leaky top level insiders and some bystanders, where on the other hand, the USSR eventually lost nearly all control and, ten's of thousands have now died as a result, far more are suffering, and now in place of a truly powerful and in-control ally, we were about to achieve and unleash total chaos from untold groups of nuclear capable radicals running amuck, and to think, our cold-wars are not the least bit over (apparently China is next). Such a sweet deal for our military and NSA fanatics and apparently as well for all those braille NASA supporters. You should be ecstatic that I'm at ease with all this, I fully understand that we (US government and all it represents) have become the world bullies and, don't you forget it.

So, as I recall asking of others, what if anything can all this anti-Apollo stuff have to do with denying the possibility of structures on Venus? What exactly are some of you NASA supporters so afraid of?, or, is Venus going to have to become just another one of your NASA/NSA cover ups? and, what could possibly be your latest motive(s)? Could this be simply that of departmental embarrassment? (could be). And, so what if my perceived knowledge of history is screwed up, how can that provide anything disqualifying against "GUTH Venus" as, all you smart little NASA moles need to do is provide independent documentation that stipulates historical facts otherwise and, then I'll apologise as well as post links to those (your) references. Unlike NASA, I'm admitting that I could be wrong and, just don't happen to see the evidence to sufficiently contradict what I believe truly happened or not. So, I ask of you to put up or shut up because, how hard can it possibly be to point me to your stash of proof positives, as either you've got great stuff that will hold up in court or apparently you don't.

The Apollo moon issues (fact or fiction), you would have to think should have nothing whatsoever to do with my original Venus discoveries "mgn-72apd.jpg and mgn-72apd-info.jpg (braille version) plus guth-venus-180-A.jpg" as well as so many other enlargements, all of which are located on my URL index: GUTH Venus. The fact that it has gives considerable support to my concerns as well perhaps to my belief's.

The fact that some of you have been so willing to blindly place such undying faith into your beloved NASA, frankly this bothers some of us, mostly because we probably figure we can't help you disconnect from your NASA/CIA/NSA/DoD hive.. Power and money corrupts most anyone, possibly even I could be persuaded into going way over the line and becoming a team player (I believe that has not happened as of yet, but you never know, I could already be spy or better yet, an undercover agent working on behalf of NASA as a "non-disclosure cop" and, if I catch you slipping anything out, then your ass is sincerely mine and, this is possible).

APOLLO RADIATION ISSUES (apparently not ? )

With regard to some obvious Apollo mission radiation considerations:

Where exactly are those astronaut film-badges, or if no longer available, why did NASA not utilize and/or keep them, since they essentially imposed no additional weight and could not have possibly been in the way of experiments. Otherwise, where are those original negatives (Apollo-11 reported to have amassed some 16,000 images plus all other missions reportedly accumulated other substantial batches of their own), and those Apollo 16 mission images should have been awash with radiation overload, so, where exactly are these "proof-positive negatives"? and, why has NASA failed to re-access them?.

I have read somewhere that our airline pilots involved with long-term high altitude flights absorb as much as 5mr radiation per journey. Over a year this amount of exposure should accumulate to over 500mr. Obviously this amount of radiation exposure spread over a year is not serious to most humans, as this can also be easily detected and recorded by various methods including that of the most basic film-badge method.

Would any of the NASA mission film packs have recorded radiation exposures (as a form of image/negative damage)? and, would NASA have not included any other form of radiation exposure recording device(s)?, I would have to think so. I'm also assuming that NASA utilized our best emulsion grade film (most sensitive and/or greatest depth spy-film) in order to not only achieve the greatest resolution but also for the added depth or contrast ratio, not to mention having the finer grain/resolution and perhaps offering the most extreme temperature capability, since those costly cameras were essentially having to produce such images from an un-insulated environment (surviving +250 > -250 degrees as well as massive radiation issues). Most conventional films would have somewhat melted (at least heat distorted/warped by the +250 degrees) or otherwise simply broke from the -250 degrees as this film was bing tightly rolled (after all this film was not of flat plates but merely 70mm roll).

I believe this portion is on behalf of NASA; (not really)

Perhaps they did apply their highest quality film (suited to +/-250 degrees F), but then somehow made a mistake (something like that "C rock issue" and as with all of those fill-in lighting and random shadow issues) of only utilizing our anti-star emulsion formula. And I'll just bet that any number of professional photographers as well as spies here on Earth, where stars are not even slightly as bright, could really use this type of anti-star film so that those pesky stars are automatically eliminated. In this way, should a date and time of exposure become known, their secret location where the photos were taken could never be truly identified... Now, perhaps also, because all of the original negatives were apparently so badly damaged from all that space radiation (especially with regard to Apollo-16 mission, however NASA never once reported that as an issue) plus further thermally damaged from all that lunar extreme heat and cold, so much so that our NASA was simply unable to recover most of the film and, otherwise had to quietly remake every surviving image by reproducing time consuming custom inner-negatives and, thereby also hopefully taking the opportunity as to applying selective dodging and burning as well as a little honest cut and splicing of various elements so that the public (taxpayers) could perhaps get their moneys worth, after all, we paid something like a million bucks for each and every one of those photo negatives supposedly taken on the moon. Plus, all of that blue-screen footage previously taken of Apollo astronauts also needed to utilized somehow, as here again, this also cost us a small fortune.

More on behalf of NASA's image scanning; (sort of)
As pre-Radio Shack or at least pre-PC, quite possibly they had to make do by utilizing relatively crude fax machines in order to scan images for the public to see. I'm sure these crude scanners were jerky and also randomly inserted selective smudges or patches and, may have affected cross-hairs out of otherwise perfectly good originals. Issues such as the "C" rock, obvious other intentional smudges, excessive lighting hot-spots, fairly intense backlighting (? supposedly as light reflecting off a medium dull gray 10% reflective lunar surface ?), multiple visor reflection errors, random/multiple shadow angles and further (total) star removals (even from their time exposure shots), and out of all the tens of thousands of such images, never one good shot of Earth (8 x larger and 16 x brighter then the moon) as to be including that of the lunar landscape and/or that of any stars, must simply have been good examples of their primitive cameras, poor film and/or scanners running amuck. Yeah Right!. NASA, I think you really need to do a whole lot better then that.

This next part gets a little scary (but entirely possible):

Perhaps due to the disastrous (somewhat lethal) beginnings and the nearly equally disastrous Apollo-13, as well as complications with regard to other missions, each attempt may have been in fact full-hearted, at least as to obtaining extended space flight and technology experience and of course to survey as much of the moon and otherwise depositing certain items, such as the (unmanned) lander base portions, and also being sure as to tossing out a few instruments, reflectors and even a flag as they flew by (a flag on a weighted pointed pole that could have easily implanted itself). This might just as well account for the mysterious lack of truly supporting photographic evidence and the fact that so many of those official NASA photos have lately become so easily detected as potentially bogus, just as those lunar rocks (including that oops "C" rock and of that image of the star surrounded lander) and of other lunar and mission related materials which could also have been just as well modified in any number of top secret colliders so as to appear as non-Earthly, again, those facilities were and still are strictly controlled by and/or at the disposal of the likes of the NASA/CIA/NSA/DoD (not you or me).

Always remember; that because so much cold-war and associated (for-profit) infrastructure was at stake, soon after any mission failure (perhaps even before the first big disaster of Apollo 10), I could just conjecture this; all those astronauts and their top NASA officials saying and agreeing to something like "that's it, this whole idea is crazy, to keep from getting killed were simply going back to the studios at area 51", and "we might not have our act together as far as actually going to and walking on the moon, but we for sure know how to fake it, and no one need be the wiser, all those agreed say [I] and those opposed may be now be excused (or eliminated)". Now I could have said "executed" but I did not, however, most of the NASA moles instantly invoked the strongest suggestions of such, just as some of the trully anti-Apollo types has been claiming, therefore, just maybe, there is something to that. As from what little I know, I certainly can't say for certain either way, however, be it even a fairly remote concept, it sure makes you think. And for another thing, the more then apparent penalties associated with that "non-disclosure" policy would be sufficient for my silence.

For your entertainment; be certain you read NASA's own "NON-DISCLOSURE" requirements, also research and read the finer print dealing with consequences and enforceable penalties. SPOOKY!

As an example; if I were employed by NASA, this whole "GUTH Venus" discovery would likely never have happened, and this discovery would (perhaps forever) have remained dormant. Apparently you can't continue to spend the really big bucks looking for alien life if in fact someone actually discovers it right next door.

All I seem to know is this;

If NASA was to ask of me today to travel to the moon, by utilizing only the equipment and technology provided to the initial Apollo missions, I would respectfully have to decline.

This is especially true when NASA was, and is apparently still unable to demonstrate a single successful Lunar-Lander test flight as right here on Earth (utilizing their manned lunar equivalent 1/6th weight/scaled version of the lunar-lander under tightly controlled conditions), as I recall it crashed more then once and otherwise we never viewed a successful test flight. Plus, to have provided unshielded film and cameras apparently so insensitive that under any circumstance could not record the most vibrant stars, as well as uninsulated from radiation, as well as heat or cold and willfully inadequate as far as the most basic optics (even of that day) in order to photograph the Earth and therefore stars along with inclusion of the lunar landscape (the Earth being 8x larger and reportedly 16x brighter then a full moon here on Earth) and with any sufficient clarity so that even the largest of and the most vibrantly colorful weather disturbances on Earth as well as other large natural targets would somehow not have been worth recording (especially if that image were to include any lunar landscape). Any documentation photographic effort simply must include the foreground as well as associated background, as otherwise, pictures of Earth are just as likely managed from virtually anywhere in space, even if they happen to include portions of the lander and, then about those tripod time exposures that somehow equally excluded any stars, what the hell happened there?. Well, I guess I'm just not all that sure anymore. A telephoto attachment (doubler) or ZOOM lens in place of the fixed focal along with some truly quality film could not have broken the camel's back, but then apparently all that so called space radiation exposure as well as the +/-250 degree environment we were taught about (by NASA) was either a bunch of crap or perhaps their film was never in fact exposed.

Now, I'm also no longer all that sure about those Apollo onboard (fly-by-wire) computers, perhaps yes, perhaps not.

These days; always a massive assortment of sensors are integrated and must be employed in order to safely control the likes of the Osprey as well as Stealth fighters (man control is simply insufficient/unsafe). Think about it, properly modulating flight control surfaces is relatively complex, however, this issue is simplistic as compared to that of modulating the main rocket as well as clusters of smaller rocket engines. Sufficient computer capability in the late 60's and early 70's (for such flight stability issues) would have consumed kilowatts and, including back-ups, the overall computing package may have weighed hundreds of pounds while also consuming the majority of available space. So, on this issue I have to side with those anti-Apollo types, at least untill I see that footage of a successful (manned 1/6th scale) Lunar Lander test flight.

As far as leaving items behind and others photographing them, several up close, such as even that first foot print. It's entirely possible that Buz or someone in fact whipped it out and then took a whizz so that the otherwise in-total-vacuum bone-dry magic-moon-dust would not only clump, but it would poof-upward and, so much so that the imprint would actually be clearly situated on top of the ground, and sufficiently so as to cast a shadow. Now I could buy this, however, I can remember being sternly informed (by those NASA moles) that the lander's rocket blast thoroughly blew every bit of dust away from the blast zone and, I should think that would have to include the area at the bottom of the ladder (directly below the ladder) and, here again I could be all wet. Sorry for the pun "wet", I could not help myself.

All that I'm saying is this, that NASA and their loyal cult supporters need to maintain their positions, obviously backed by all those 10's of thousands of (locked away or lost forever) original large format negatives. That is not saying that every one else has to believe everything God has to say, after all, NASA had more then just a little pressure to pull this whole series of Apollo missions off, our "Cold-WAR" with the USSR was entirely at stake, and taxpayers (myself included) were becoming restless, not to mention the highest levels of our government and, there were finite resources which were badly dwindling.

God, NASA and NSA/DoD are perhaps one in the same:

Obtaining information from NASA/NSA/DoD is obviously impaired by their own internal "NON-DISCLOSURE" cults. This element alone is lethally backed so as to insure containment of unauthorized statements as well as the release of any objects such as those original negatives. Those willing to share any information are at great personal risk as well as that of their associates and possibly even family members, especially so of those the public might place their trust and therefore potentially (God forbid) believe in.

Remember; at the time of our cold-war with Russia, our getting to the moon represented nearly everything, and we (NASA/NSA/CIA/DoD) essentially pulled it off and, in effect, effectively overwhelming their capacities and ultimately destroying the will of the USSR and, as Americans we should all be proud of this fact, after all, it only cost us a few hundred billion and relatively few of our lives and, now merely 10's of thousands of Russian lives and, otherwise thoroughly side tracked true space advancements (other then military) and nearly drained our economy as well. So, landing or not on the moon is essentially a non-issue, we won the damn COLD WAR, end of story and, great job NASA!

For the historical record, it would be even so much better to know if our NASA/CIA/NSA/DoD efforts were in fact able to pull this one off without ever going to the moon, or at least not having to actually land and walk on it, as that fact alone would certainly impress me.. What a story that would make, TV producers would have their new lease on life, at least for the next generation of programming. And, I for one would rather have this as our legacy rather then any remains of American astronauts left behind as dry/freeze on the moon.. Of course we must all realize that this whole moon issue may eventually require another 30 years to resolve, sufficiently long enough so that everyone involved is dead as well as any remaining damaging records either lost or merely destroyed.

Too bad for all you braille NASA lovers;

Sorry you can't seem to take a little criticism.. Just for your sake, I guess I should have stated SATAN and NASA/CIA/NSA/DoD are one in the same.. Hay, money corrupts, and power is simply far too tempting. When you put money and power together, backed by deep taxpayer pockets (however misinformed), things just happen.

Now, I'm not the one being RUDE!

What is becoming rude is not having better access to all or at least a few of the original files and images (original negatives are essential, reprints can be meaningless), what is further disturbing is NASA's inability to get past their highly successful cold-war lunar/Apollo missions, and to devote some serious time to uncovering what is currently obtainable within our own planets. Venus is a whole lot cheaper then going off into deep space, or even that of maintaining any cold-war(s) or otherwise that of general global spying, and should anything interesting turn up (such as at "GUTH Venus") we could actually go there, if not at least communicate by some form of two-way TV/radio link or other methods.

Back once again to Apollo;

If in fact NASA/CIA/NSA/DoD ever pulled anything off with regard to the Apollo missions, then several closely connected individuals that were not so happy about all this were likely eliminated or placed into situations which assured NASA that their knowledge would be lost for ever (somewhat like that of the 500 page safety report and every other bit of that man's supporting office files and, he did have an office and other files, so that not everything was stored in that one 500 page report).

I am not saying that as early as mid 1962 there were signs that our expertise was going to be insufficient, as to pulling off these Apollo missions, I do however believe, if President Kennedy was made aware of these difficulties and of likely failures that could not only embarrass Americans but get some of our very best talents killed, that upon this understanding, I feel certain he would have been honest enough to his public and willing to concede instead of taking such unwarranted chances. It is therefore conceivable that those within the powerful NSA/DoD agencies would have had a clear and perhaps pre-authorised motivation as to concealing whatever, so that the cold-war perception of an American threat from space could be fostered and, doing whatever it took to make that happen may have something if not a whole lot to do with the demise of several individuals. Remember, as far as war games go, this one held the most access into the taxpayer's pockets plus, almost everyone (including myself) wanted pretty much what president Kennedy wanted; our man on the moon and, not to be beat by some dirty rotten communist. Now, I'm beginning to wish it were those capable communist instead of our pathetic ruse because, a lot of innocent civilians would be alive today and, if not that, at least they would have forfeited their lives for something real instead of what we now have to offer.

One thing (especially a lie) always leads to another, and you can just bet if necessary, our NASA/NSA/DoD pulled out all the stops and utilized every option at their disposal and, then created whatever else was necessary, as they had to do this, it was imperative and for the most part their obligation if we were ever going to win this pretentious cold-war, and thereby forcing the USSR into the dust, and no way is NASA going to loose any points over this fact.

What about Russia (with regard to exposing our Apollo missions);

I do not believe that at the time Russia had anything sufficiently capable of independently detecting our Apollo landings or even intercepting NASA data streams, as this may still be the case today and, besides, they may have been just as convinced or fooled as the rest of us and, so there was perhaps no point in trying. It was a bit interesting to me, long after the fact, to finally discover that the majority of USSR space programs were, at the time of the Apollo missions, being achieved at no more then 10% (in equal dollars) as to what we were investing, and apparently some of their space programs involved as little as 1% of equal dollars. This simply proves they were quite good, just not good enough, at least in terms of dollars spent.

Here are those great proof positive NASA image files (provided from those wizards at

You decide if these are sufficient. I personally think NASA could and should have done a better job. Especially these 70 mile high orbit images of various equipment as situated on the lunar surface are quit good if what you are looking for is simply another unidentifiable speck, supposedly representing some sort of equipment which can't truly be actualy identified as the manned Apollo-11 lunar lander.


Apollo 11: Scoured-out area under nozzle:


Apollo 12: some sweep-out under Lunar Module (or LM):


Apollo 12: Scouring grooves under LM:


Apollo 14: Area under nozzle


Apollo 15 Lunar Module on surface. Photographed from Command Module orbiting 70 miles above. Note white sweep-out area around LM:


Apollo 16 Lunar Module on surface. Photographed from Command Module orbiting 70 miles above. Note white sweep-out area around LM:


Apollo 17 Photo of LM from the side. Note white sweep out


40 second movie of Apollo 17 landing - !!5 meg file!!


Unlike those braille NASA supporters, I can still be objective (outside that "non-disclosure" impact), identifying and sharing valuable information on behalf of NASA and humanity, and also remaining constructively critical of the Apollo results.. I do not see the problem here, however, most of the responses from UPLINK.SPACE.COM seem to have been so overly impressed with those relatively piss poor quality Apollo mission photos, so much so that they can't see a damn thing on Venus (even if I am offering far better resolution and essentially far more information then obviously their NASA brains can handle), as apparently their vastly superior photo enhance software induces so much distortion that this only further proves there is nothing there.. For this, I have not a clue what anyone can do to help these souls.

Lander Rocket Nozzle;

Now I'm not a rocket scientist, but really, those excellent closeups of the lunar-lander main engine nozzle, I'm truly impressed about that gray steel or coating, it's really something.

OK, that's a given, NASA used titanium and/or their super-duper-heat carbon coating here, apparently because they did not want it to rust, and that is obviously why there is a total lack of any discoloration or discernable heat distortions.. Now I think that part of the engine gets hot, really hot. You tell me otherwise, PLEASE!

Very good answers; liquid cooled and having no possible flame-around or reflected/deflected flame/heat considerations, also (even though mechanically connected) totally quiet from inside when in operation and, I'll bet all that's the truth.

More about those reflective qualities of the moon;

From the NASA official images, when the frame exposure was clearly comprised of relatively neutral background, as far as not having any of those hot-spots or deep shadows to cause film to bleed or having other areas under/over exposed, (and still no pesky stars) the moon color or surface tint was supposed to be (according to NASA's own records) nearly as gray (if not darker) as compared to that main rocket nozzle (approx 10% reflective), and therefore this is nowhere as white as withing many of the images nor as some of you NASA supporters have been making it out to be. So, purely reflective fill-in back-lighting effects are not as likely to explain how all of those deeply shadowed areas were so extremely well illuminated as previously stated and further demonstrated by one of your your own "proof-positive" official NASA anti-moon-hoax website images. I think, no, I know NASA needs to continue working on this one a bit more.

Regarding solar heat and/or the lack thereof;

No atmosphere and, thereby no smog, no dust and not even a lunar forest to filter the sun, as well as no other beneficial lighting refraction considerations. RIGHT!

NASA further stated the lunar exposure time was limited to early mornings and I believe I recall late afternoon, RIGHT! (I don't think so!)

If there is in fact nothing in the way of the sun, it only stands to reason that the solar impact would be nearly (exactly) the same at high noon as it would have been at lunar sunrise or late afternoon (sunset). So why did NASA make a point of stating otherwise?. Even early morning outings would have been nearly instantly baking at +250 degrees (including the lunar surface), unless in the shade at -250 degrees.. If full sun exposure represents +250 degrees and one foot or so above the lunar surface or in the shade is -250 (because there is no atmosphere), shaded equipment should therefore be at sub-zero temperatures and, so I guess I just don't understand, what was NASA thinking when I recall they made statements to the contrary, stating that our crew(s) were somehow better protected by staying out of the mid-day solar exposures, as though early lunar mornings or late lunar afternoon sunlight was somehow less hot. For one thing, the moon is obviously not rotating, but is only shadowed by Earth, and therefore only the edge of that shadow could offer any form of consideration. And I believe it takes a basic atmosphere (and therefore moisture and/or some sort of chemical elements) in order to hold as well as to transfer heat.

Another thing, if the Earth offered 16 times the light of our full moon here on Earth, then why was that not of sufficient lighting to work in. I can read by the light of our moonlight and, 16 times more would be damn bright. As I understand, it takes somewhat lessor technology to stay insulated and warm then it would have required to otherwise remain cool (such as while working on the surface) at +250 degrees. So again, why did we need the sun light?

Lighting reflections: Hmmmm ?

The moon's surface is reported as somewhat dull gray (as 10% reflective and not stark/bleach white), and at that any potentially reflective vertical terrain was not even close, but that of being mostly flat terrain and, therefore not sufficiently acting as would any good photographers reflective (vertical) backdrop, as would most likely have been needed if for effective/sufficient fill-in lighting. Now, I can understand why some professionals need additional input from NASA, I know that from my personal photographic work, which included backlighting effects, that I simply can't answer how those Apollo missions ever accomplished those extremely difficult images, having but one ultimate light source (the sun) and, otherwise a absolutely pitch black (non-reflecting as wellas apparently star less) sky.


I have been directed (once again by those NASA moles) to some truly remarkable photo exposures, the links were offered by those hard working braille NASA supporters.. Now this following NASA photo is clearly one of their best super proof positive images proving we or at least something went to the moon. source:

OOPS, too bad, this must have been taken by one of those disposable WalMart cameras and not by a real camera using some of that top notch high definition large format NASA spy film, because otherwise, from such a quality large format original negative (or at least that of a direct 1:1 inner negative) NASA would have had hundreds of millions of detail image capturing grains per square centimeter to work with. This image is said to be depicting the Apollo-15 lander module, as captured from 70 miles above and, you can in fact see a speck and you can even enlarge that speck, however nothing can be clearly identified as to shape or configuration that might indicate for certain that what the speck represents is in fact the Apollo-15 (manned) lander, and most certainly not in the least bit indicating anything manned. Once again, too, too bad, what a downright shame, and to think, NASA almost had all this anti-moon stuff hammered. Better luck next time. I forgot, apparently not even NASA as access to those original negatives, boy, what a dilemma.

Now here is another somewhat bad thought;

NASA was most likely somewhat overwhelmed, as was I, by all their successes, and somehow in all their rejoicing at official toga parties, as at most any wild party, lunar snapshots are freely passed around, butts are being xeroxed and eventually most of these are being made into little paper airplanes or used as trash-ball sport.

Now I know this is highly likely, and furthermore, that these original negatives were probably also being safely kept in one of those $500,000 moon-boot boxes (I use old shoe boxes), and it is entirely possible these have all been long gone, somehow inadvertently thrown out with all the other toga party trash. Its happened to me.

So, should any of you braille Apollo supporters ever come across one of those missing moon-boot boxes, please have someone sighted check inside before you throw the damn thing away again, you just never know what could be inside. NASA really needs those high resolution large format negatives back more then ever, as that simple speck of proof hardly perceived can easily be enlarged (100X) with tremendous detail, nothing at all so bad as those images taken by the disposable WalMart cameras.


What exactly do you guys have to show me that's better then my "GUTH Venus" mgn-72apd.jpg image.. You NASA supporters firmly stated that my software was crap and your's was vastly superior, let us see it, what do you have to show ?. It's high noon at the "OK corral". It's time to put up or shut up.

My reply to: Mike, (federal employee)
Thank you so very much for your input.

Can you help correct these NASA supporters, with regard to resolution and/or enlargements and thereby greater photo detail. This was in response to some of my Hubble ST questions:

According to those of you vastly smarter then me, I'm being told that a image sensor (CCD) chip supporting all of 1 pixel per centimeter would produce the exact same resolution and therefore same detail as one housing a million pixels per square centimeter.. Now,,, that must explain why NASA hasn't bothered to enlarge anything off those supposed positive proof images, be it pixels or grains per square centimeter is apparently (to you guys) meaningless. OK, and I'm supposed to believe this ?.

Something is strange about our guys:

Since some of these fine upstanding individuals have already informed the world that I know "nothing" so, why do I get the impression from time to time that some of them are relatively dim-witted. Is this just me, or is this MEMOREX. Sorry about that pun. Boy, I must be really losing it. I need a new "PUN" reference book, or possibly a "pun search" should do the trick.

NASA has way too many moles: Some of (hell, most of) the most outspoken individuals at are just that, "moles" and, they have absolutely no sense of humor. Now perhaps, we should all try to understand exactly what a mole is and, what the function of moles are. This relates to all of those official moles as well as possibly other "soft moles" occupying such sites as "".

The primary function of any good mole is basically to gather information for their employer. The second most important requirement is to undermine the opposition without anyone knowing whom you really work for.

If I were running NASA, basically in the position of making things happen, including making sure that deep-pocket-taxpayer and special interest funding continues to flow, well, I too would see that I had carefully placed moles wherever they would do the most good, and of course these individuals would be highly paid because, without them my "house of cards" could easily fall apart. These days in government, moles are common place, and NASA is simply no exception.

I'm stating there are in fact official as well as soft moles operating on behalf of NASA, not so much because of "GUTH Venus", as according to NASA as well as several guys, my enlargement(s) show "ABSOLUTELY NOTHING". This however is obviously not the case at all and, it may be extremely important that others better understand why such outrages denials are being generated by those supposedly independently thinking (supposedly by serious space research/exploration) individuals. This really should make you consider what is perhaps going wrong within Club NASA, as I know that is what set me off looking for other answers.

The more one thinks, the more questions keep showing up, and sometimes answers just emerge: The more you ponder over some of the external NASA support statements, the more you should wonder about motives. Like try commenting on a few of the Apollo mission photos, clearly showing lighting hot-spots, visor image errors (I'm speaking photographic and not so much about content however, I believe there are content errors as well), the total lack of any stars even when the camera was clearly in the shade of the lander and obviously set for over-exposure so that the extremely pitch dark side of the lunar lander as well as the astronaut within it's deep shadow was in the fullest detail and, yet "no stars". Then there is that bone-dry moon dust that not only was somehow selectively blown away from the lander's rocket blast, but it clumps and even clearly rises above the surface. Now any good mole worth his or her salt would jump allover anyone, really hard, posturing as being so outraged and disgusted to the extent that any negative NASA comments soon become as disqualified as possible, and as soon as possible, and preferably before such posted comments attract the attention of others.

NASA clearly needs money and plenty of it, and is obviously not one to be criticized, especially not about anything that could be so outrageous and therefore damaging as continuing to cover mistakes and the altering of facts in order to suite their goals. So, are we truly looking for the existence of life other then on Earth or is NASA simply working the table to protect hidden agendas?. And, just how much influence has the NSA, CIA & DoD have upon NASA today?.

Hoof and Mouth infection may eventually take on a whole new meaning with regard to our NASA/CIA/NSA/DoD and their ever expanding mole population. As with the real disease, this infliction spreads quickly and is quite difficult if not impossible to totally eradicate. A human form of "mad-cow" may also have infected and thereby affected as well the memories of any true facts, which would account for why NASA can't seem to recall exactly where some of their original Apollo negatives are nor how to ever get their hands on them again.

Just a little extra thought:

With all respect; I sure hope none of you out there truly believe that every US government agency, as well as every department within, are all a bunch of joy-joy do-gooders, without ever a mistake or a bad thought or deed to their name. I don't even think the Pope can claim that.

For more of my images, further research and hopefully better words regarding the discovery of "GUTH Venus", please review my updated URL:


Copyright © 2000/2002 - Brad E. Guth
GUTH Venus: All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: Brad Guth -
created: May 18, 2002

Brad Guth / IEIS