This effort was intended to allow those so inclined as to critique first and think later, or as pro-NASA types so often simply fail to think at all, as to allowing their participating in this review and ongoing research of the "GUTH Venus" discovery (noooo, apparently pro-NASA types can't do that!).   In spite of this despicable sort of treatment by the establishments (always fully moderated by NASA), these following considerations and of the "To Do" list are simply my way of properly accommodating those having such a genetic handicap as having "the right stuff" and otherwise recognizing and then properly dealing with (circumventing) their ulterior motives. Here I always thought, by having the right stuff was a good thing, my mistake.

1 - Observationology is not per say about astronomy; nor geology nor much of any other "ology". This is not to say that observational skills are not those of a highly trained and experienced nature, demanding far more then of your typical weekend photo shoots and, you really need to have your sight, as affirmative action hiring or not, those braille image interpreters working for NASA are simply a real bummer (dogs and white canes may have worked just fine and dandy for those Apollo mission photos, however, in reality they simply don't cut it any more).

If you can sufficiently observe something, that generally represents you can tell at least a little about what it is that you're looking at, as this is certainly not about any speck of off colored light that's residing thousands of lightyears away, nor mixed up along with millions of other brighter specs. In this instance, there's ample details to look at, to consider as for what such could have been utilized for, somewhat like your looking out the window of a low flying aircraft and seeing a number of things that seem quite exactly like the sorts of stuff around your home town. Of course, if you insist upon using the variable rules of justified idea bashing, the NASA moderated rule of bash first and ask questions later, then there's not much point in even trying to convey anything good or bad because, just out of principals they'll reject you and anything you have to offer no matters what.

2 - A discovery of this magnitude is not required to have either astronomy or even secondary observationology aspects (such as calling out specifics as to what certain identifications are being utilized for, as this component or phase is optional).  In the absence of other better alternatives, such as actual geology samples and other certified photos (including their original negatives) as acquired from being situated on the actual planet surface (preferably with someone holding up a copy of the "Venus Times Tribune" newspaper), our existing visual observations and of those especially as being provided by the "extraordinary" as well as the nearly 3D 43 perspective SAR imaging, is nicely representing the very best of what the majority of our planetary and lunar exploits have ever delivered. NASA's very own NSA/DoD SAR approval rating is that classified also by NIMA.MIL as being vastly superior to any conventional photography, especially whenever comparing to such images that are of highly questionable but conventional photographic looking content and, even as far better then those acquired from the finest optical CCD imaging, as both of these formats represent serious limitations as well as for permitting manipulations (especially whenever their original flies or negatives are not being offered, such as Apollo) and, thereby support nothing as truthful nor as downright defining nor anywhere as truthfully usable as to what SAR format can and has been delivering.

SAR imaging is even more so totally above reproach, especially up against most other image formats, especially more so should those original CCD files and/or photographic negatives be eliminated from the essential process of establishing "extraordinary proof" and thereby "truths", as well as away from those more capable hands of the experienced commercial photo labs which could have otherwise easily burned (not literally but photo graphically speaking) those so called dim stars from within that otherwise pitch black lunar sky, sufficiently so that a qualified stellar expert(s) would have easily verified the originating location from which all of those Apollo missions occurred, and/or simply have resampled every image into a highly more usable as well as truly certified enlargement, where 5X is a snap and 10X is entirely within every acceptable standards (unless your trying to read news print from 225 km, as then I'll have to agree, that such efforts are currently not all that acceptable, at least not until the latest round of upgrades are applied into Hubble, then we'll all be capable of reading foreign news print).

NOTE: as of more then five years ago, the very best satellite capability of SAR (@0.1 aperture, utilizing that 60 meter receiving mast and a 1024 imaging sensor) along with applying certified digital resampling was perhaps at 1.5" resolution. Today we should actually be capable of at least 4 times better, which is still not news print and, not that SAR is even suited for such applications, unless that news print were headline large as well as to be offering a sufficient differential of signal reflective quality, as obviously SAR is not only that which is color blind, it also is not going to detect anything lessor then one wave length nor that of most black inks from that of the paper (at least not from a distance of 225 km and furthermore, not if being further limited or restricted to merely X-Band frequencies). If we don't have a 2048 or a 4096 format receiving sensor, apparently "Quick Bird" does.

SAR imaging placed on steroids

What if we were to employ the lunar surface as for that of locating the SAR receiver aperture/chip;
If our best shuttle SAR imaging produces 1.5 meter raw pixels from an altitude or distance of roughly 240 km by utilizing a 60 meter receiving mast, replacing that receiving mast as for being reestablished as the lunar distance of 360,000 km is going to instantly offer another 6^6 magnification factor, then replacing the 1024 pixel chip with a 4096 pixel format within the same aperture and, lo and behold, we're now pushing 24^6 better magnification. What this obviously means is that we can now obtain the same 1.5 meter raw pixel resolution at the distance of 5760^6 km (that's prior to any PhotoShop that can ten fold upon those results). I don't want to sound off being overly pretentious but, that's a whole lot better resolution than of what we're getting back from mars and, that's perhaps 16 bit SAR which is telling us an extraordinary number of things no ordinary optical CCD can possibly accomplish.

3 - Because this "GUTH Venus" discovery has been achieved via experienced observational capabilities;  others staunchly opposing must reasonably demonstrate their observational expertise, as well as otherwise introduce whatever their rational basis is for forming their contentions that absolutely every thing was formed naturally and, this sort of effort will likely require an image or two, of at least something that's somewhat similar in artificial looking consideration, that they and others can somehow confirm as being either that of an illusion and/or of purely natural origins. I know for a fact that there are thousands of such Earthly images to work with and, I have said this before, that I would accept their efforts even if such SAR imaging resource was of Earth (so, even though other nor have I located anything worth comparing, as good as you probably claim you are, how hard can that possibly be?).

4 - In my further reviewing the potential of whatever these estimated functions and/or applied usage of such artificial elements may be; for this I drawn upon my thousands of commercial 70mm photographic hours, as well as hundreds of aerial imaging observational experiences in order to differentiate upon what is the bulk of most likely natural from that of so much other being artificial and, I therefore expect at least the same or better arguments from others, otherwise, what's the freaking point. In addition to my observational capabilities, the archives of SAR imaging are chuck-full of exceptional examples which have long since been fully certified as to differentiating upon what is artificial from that which is natural (a search for: "SAR images" on the net will soon overwhelm your every need for such "extraordinary" proof).

5 - Accepting your criticisms;  I will acknowledge that my form of documentation is not NASA's standard format (far from it). Early on, long before I ever developed any of my web documents, I tried as best I could, to not only inform and reinform NASA as well as other pro-NASA types, but I also took the additional time (hundreds of investigative and learning curve hours) in order to become as self critical as I could. I learned more about digital photography and subsequent enlargement options then is necessary to have discovered everything you see in my discovery sites.

6 - The most critical issues may become those having to deal with the October/November 2002 opportunity; and, I fully expect those interested and/or critical should reconsider the motives of those so intent upon suppressing what this discovery has to offer. What possibly could be a valid motive as to passing up this sort of opportunity and otherwise, what is so damn secret that will not likely become public within the next year or so (I guess this may be where things get really spooky, sort of like those shoot outs on "GUN SMOKE", wondering who is going to make the first move, where usually it's the bad guys with Mat always there and a split second faster at the draw).

What this discovery obviously needs is plenty of other expertise;  including chemical, aeronautical, geological, atmospherics and assorted others, most likely including whatever you might have to offer. As I've stated throughout my delivery (unlike NASA), I'm not the all-knowing expert and, this massive discovery I believe deserves a fairly wide base of expertise, which need not require your having one bit of astronomy nor even observationology capabilities, unless you intend to simply continue bashing away until the day you die. On the other hand, if you in fact do have thousands of hours involving hands-on 70mm or of better format photography talent, as well as substantial aerial observational experience to offer (such as U2 or other such aerial spy image interpreting), then by all means, others and especially myself will be most interested in whatever it is you have to offer and, I'll see that your research is given the credits due.

Ulterior motives are about the only logic which remains to be better understood;  as I certainly have no motive towards introducing a discovery which offers no potential nor viably obtainable goals (such as acquiring those Mars microbes seems rather pointless as well as extremely expensive and damn risky to boot), as what could my hidden agenda possibly be, other then disclosing this major discovery as an oversite and perhaps a few other NASA related "truths" and, perhaps that of getting our pathetic NASA back somewhat onto a space research and exploration track, thus achieving worthy as well as obtainable (humanitarian worthy) goals and, I'll suppose thereby saving us taxpayers a few hundred billion over the next decade (unless of course, you can inform me as to why our mutual humanity needs those Mars microbes).

I am certainly not the one saying that everything accomplished by NASA has come at too high of a price;  I'm simply hoping that perhaps a little focus becomes a bit closer to home. If for instance; should those 250 billion dollar Mars microbes lead us into discovering the entire DNA coding of every Earth bound Rhino virus, then by all means, let us proceed. After all, resolving the common cold and quite often that includes various flu's, is annually worth (in this country alone) countless billions (at the very least 100 billion worth and perhaps globally we are talking of at least a trillion, year after year), by simple elimination of the major cause of sick leave, as well as countless sleepless nights by parents having to deal with their sick kids, not to mention productivity considerations, especially by those of us unable to afford nor otherwise not entitled to sufficient job benefits so as to compensate for our down-time. Please, someone inform me that this is where those next 250 billion dollars are going. I know that conquering that Rhino virus is not all that exciting, obviously not as popular as Cancer and AIDS, but nor is it "rocket science", just as long as NSA/DoD don't have their eyes upon those microbes for the intent of their creating another wicked batch of biological technology, by which to dominate Earth, then at least I'll be at rest and, then simply you and I will be alive but broke for having to pay for all that.

If my forthright motives are what's bothering you (freaking you out), then you haven't seen or heard anything, as perhaps you need to become willing to share in the coming outfall of "truths", those truths regarding what our Administration(s) and beloved NASA/NSA/DoD have been up to for the past three decades and counting, equally so prepared as to share in the responsibilities of the associated restitution issues (perhaps globally we're talking about 100 trillion bucks worth).

If you want any portion of what's to be coming out of this "GUTH Venus" opportunity, you simply must share whatever it is that others can utilize towards furthering this adventure. If you are an avid pro-NASA type (like myself, except for all that NSA/DoD cloak and dagger stuff), then merely provide whatever you can without violating your "nondisclosure" agreement (it wont do either of us any good if you're incapacitated or worse). Siding with the "GUTH Venus" discovery is certainly not about doing bad things and, if you think otherwise, just step aside and we will not keep mentioning your name every time others and myself must re-defend this remarkable discovery.

To the INDEX page: GUTH Venus (with loads of updates)
alternate URL's:  and
Copyright © 2000/2001/2002/2003 - Brad E. Guth
GUTH Venus: All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: Brad Guth - Brad Guth / IEIS   ~  1-253-8576061
created: March 05, 2002

Brad Guth / IEIS