( the "Brown-nose" standard, the Viagara standard and the universal "NUL" standard )
( by; Brad Guth / IEIS   edit: June 26, 2002 )

A flack/bio suit enhancement for all your privet parts

Many of your best and most capable defensive mole groups are certainly not working alone at just opposing my efforts, as they are more then obviously group opposing that of any individual or socitity or even that of an idea that suggest the least taint upon their pagan super God (NASA/NSA/DoD). So, it's certainly no wonder, that I've been receiving more then my fair share of scripted "get well" cards.

Once I came to better understand the historical and current agenda reasons and more then obvious ulterior motives at play, my discovery and I have now become somewhat more so a focus point, by which even others are being judged and/or punished (the hell with judging, as that takes time and, you might even make a human mistake of letting one slip through). So, the default prime mole objective has always been to first destroy and concure, then pillage and plunder until there is nothing left (placing a truth or even an idea out of sight and thereby out of mind).

Even if one was merely trying to comprehend space travel, as with any regard to solar radiation shields or as to that of a reliable surface lander capable of retrieving the crew (prefferably still alive), these two issues alone are simply too easily connected (as they should be) to those Apollo missions, yet the raw information (let alone any specifics) has either been knowingly removed or simply lost forever and, those involved are now few, either near death or worse.

An interesting ongoing observation; having nothing whatsoever to do with that of any vastly superior SAR images of the planet Venus, is that my opposition seems to have been based upon a holier then thou triple standard. The first of which is the "brown nose standard" by which each club member sucks up to their fellow inmate, where they each exchange mutual gratifications upon thier daily victories of "one upmanship" upon bashing away at anyone opposing any of their views or pagan Gods.

The second of these standards, is their "Viagra standard", by which those being iniated into their club are basically given the royal fork (if you know what I mean). In that way, if the fork stays in long enough and, if the recipiant is still alive and kicking after a fair degree of forking and, smiles all the time this is going on, then there is a slim to remote chance of there being a final test phase, that which will determine the ultimate membership or not. That test phase will again be that of a similar initiation ritual, except as applied onto the next available "sucker" of the club's choosing.

The ultimate third standard is represented by basically nothing whatsoever. That's because this standard is open ended and as such basically is founded upon nothing whatsoever scientific, sort of the catch all of all standards, by which the club member can disregard the first two standards and simply adopt whatever their hart or pecker desires. Sort of your E-hate modus of operandi, except having essentially no limits, just that of a number of four letter words compiled into scientific garbage (mostly of NASA moderated knowledge, then scripted and thereby approved for usage against their enemies), as phrases intended as reinforcing their self justifiable arrogance and utter stupidity wich may have gotten more then a few killed (this is where great acting and posturing is nearly everything).

However, if this third standard is still not doing the intended job of inflicting sufficient intolerance and subsequent punishments, there's always the universally accepted "nul" response. That's useful when they can't take the heat and/or they've run out of those NASA approved "damage control" scripts. I've often received this "nul" responce, such as from those which were actively involved with the Venus "Magellan" and other related research, from which they have subsequently held very high level status either still within NASA or have obtained better pay and benefits as employed by some of our highest research and learning institutions. All I can can do about those "nul" responces is to list their names, as being informed of my research and that I was merely attempting to inlist there expertise and hopefully their support (which naturally ever came).

Now, I know all of the above offers a great deal of truth because, I've caught a few too many lies and intentional disinformation factors, those basically plaging anyone desiring to learn of what's been accomplished and of what there is that could possibly remain to be resolved. When the public and even the serious researcher is placed on such a disinformation "need to know" and a "seak and you may or may not find" basis, certain individuals, such as myself, may mistakenly uncover/discover a tad bit more then anticipitated and, this is certainly a problem for those "damage control" moles, in that this can quickly become counter productive for both sides. That's about where I am, having to look at so much disinformation and soon realizing that others and I have been thoroughly snookered (35+ years worth in my case, boy do I feel like an idiot).

If this bashing should happen onto your ideas or research, perhaps my experience can help to alleviate some of your stress and anger. If nothing else, I can help to focus that anger and channel you onto an appropriate target, worthy of being destroyed. Even though I'm just learning the finer points of this upstanding club membership rule of seek and destroy games, my having recent practice with the "GUTH Venus" discoveries has made some progress, inroads which I'll gladly share with you.

This may become of some interest; I have found that there are ways of implanting a "Trojan" or two and, just like the real thing, sometimes they leak when you least expect it. That's when their "OOPS factors" kick in and sometimes all hell breaks free.

A good method of mutual support and towards improving upon a climax, is to openly share your ideas and to keep the public informed of your every move, in that way, those men and helicopters in black are going to have to work just a little harder at snuffing you out (sort of makes you feel all warm and fuzzy allover).

I'll still advise you to wear your flack suit and even dawn a bio-hazard garment before confronting those moles. It's certainly a whole lot safer to deal directly with NASA but, be prepared as to being delayed until you're dead and gone, as then they'll name a nasty crater or killer steroid after you.

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS  1-253-8576061  http://geocities.com/bradguth and http://guthvenus.tripod.com


(this could be where the fan hits the salad bar)

I was just recently reminded of the other quad+ standards:  Proud principles by which all of astronomy seems to thrive upon, as to best protect themselves from unnecessary challenging input as well as potential ridicule, and/or to allow, if not the outright encouragement of, unsubstantiated bashing in the name of God know's what, apparently whatever is fair or not so fair.

This following effort is my belated review of just how such warm and fuzzy rules of such club standards have obviously gone a lon ways towards infecting and suppressing knowledge and worthy achievements, mostly at that as pertaining to observational astronomy (since, except for our moon, we usually can't directly go there, so what you see is pretty much what you get to work with, unless you're talking of UV, IR or FIR imaging, of which I am not).

That lunar thing, as pertaining to those Apollo missions, supported by claims clearly imposed solely by Club NASA, equally must be supported by extraordinary observational proof, which at this time remains a littie short of supply, especially when their imaging is of such highly susceptible photographic format, having all sorts of worthy challenges which have been denied the opportunity of open review from those original negatives (why and how can this be?), as how can any 200+ billion dollars worth of extraordinary mission investments no longer have to be supported by that all essential extraordinary proof standard?, Yet my discovery, as based upon absolute SAR digitial imiging technology as well as having the original digital format available for thorough review, apparently this somehow needs more approval then of those Apollo mission photos.

First standard goes something like this:
If you have a discovery that includes absolute proof, such as supported by multiple concurring technologies plus, multiple imaging as from multiple sources as well as various angles, along with irrefutable actual geological materials as that acquired from the discovery site (which are clearly not Earth like), then you can indeed present such a discovery for others to study and criticize. This rule or standard is always acceptable by all parties (including myself).

Second standard:
Objecting to others disqualifying your discovery is also OK however, to this I have absolutely no problem with such bashings, just as long as I'm permitted to review their observational standards upon which they so base their beliefs. If you choose, as I have, to question those as to their interpretation of your work because they have been refusing to share or demonstrate their observational expertise and associated supportive examples, then apparently we have a problem because, I have to believe one can not expect of these other opinions to provide truthful evaluations as based upon their observational standards because, they either don't have any observational experience and/or standards of references by which they lord over your accomplishments, as I guess they will simply presume as to being unfairly attacked for their unsubstantiated opinions and simply further recoil, then going about formally attacking everything you possibly have to offer. This is apparently one of those OK (mostly white boys club) standards of fair play (where unsubstantiated bashing is not only encouraged, but funded and to even be rewarded by NASA).

Third standard:
Pointing out mistakes or oversights of others is also entirely OK.

For example; you can always point out such compromises, however, you apparently can not point out for instance that NASA is somewhat dimwitted, especially if you intend to include/list others as belonging in the group and, even if all others are to be expressly excluded, the greater community of researchers will always side on behalf of their pagan God (NASA, the cash and benefits cow) regrarless of whatever you have to offer. Seems rather pathetic but, what do I know about such things (over time and from ongoing research into such matters, I'm gaining a bit more insight then I thought possible, but I've obviously have a long way to go).

Forth standard:
Reviewing the work of others, including official NASA images, in order to self-determine if any such other observational images can somehow support the arguments against a new discovery, this is entirely OK, however.

This is somewhat like the second standard, in that as much, by asking of your critics to support their observational standards from their record of experience and by recorded example is totally unacceptable. And so, I have a little problem with this, as it seems as though, every newcomer is placed on a "need to know" basis and, though all observational discovery work is obviously somewhat exploratory by nature and can be openly as well as officially bashed and even downright dismissed purely by the words of others having not one solitary supportive image upholding their opposition's point of view, all of this pretentious standard is somehow fully acceptable, as that being sanctioned as fair play. So, even if I can not locate one single image supporting their counter points of view, I am to guess that's not to say that somewhere out there (on that need to know basis) there is such a worthy image and, it's purely my responsibility and subsequent fault that I simply have not discovered it (I happen think this official policy standard a total waste of talents as well as time and money but, then again, what do I know, except that apparently NASA isn't giving a flying "Fork" about their spending and wasting your's and my money and, at least that much I do clearly understand).

Fifth standard:
In light of my not having other specifically supportive observational technologies available (at least not at this time and, not that I haven't been requesting just that sort of support), as this often variable standard depends purely upon whom is speaking more often then not against my research, where hopefully this deals purely with planetary observational aspects but, that's not been the case. The fact that nearly everything except for most mineral and gas analysis is to be in one way or another based upon and/or eventually converted into observational aspects and/or visual formats for human review, seems reasonable enough but, this is often where those interpretations become clouded and usually supportive of the "status quo".

Such as; If the discovery should somehow fail to include multiple technology support, such as by not including spectral analysis among with many other supportive studies, then no matters what the open observational proof is, it's instantly and unequivocally classified as meaningless dribble, at least until someone other with a big ass name or associated with such, manages to take independent credit for supporting your findings (if not simply all the credits) by somehow including other substantiated resources of suddenly revised evidence and/or simply by delivering a sufficiently polished "NASA grade" document that has been basically formulated upon the exact same original evidence and nothing more.

Sixth standard: (even I did not realize there could ever be a sixth)
What ever you do, don't mention or in any way involve or even suggest the phrases of death; "conspiracy", "cover up" or "ulterior motives", as in either instance the brains of those involved with such previous ans ongoing mass consuming of taxpayer funds may become violently hyper and, cease to function as would a normal human.

Even if the facts seem to explain or at least qualify why all the official bashing and denial and subsequent lack of support this discovery has brought fourth, then also, as poking at old embers to see if anything lights up is apparently also a sacrilegious industry no no. I am to guess, we are not allowed to return the favor of thoroughly unsupported bashings, only entitled as to receiving them.

OK, next time I'm asked to support a flat out known lie, such as pertaining to the worlds' greatest ruse, just so that someone (perhaps thousands) within NASA are protected and retain their retirements with full benefits, you can count me in, just as long as I'm not in any manner connected with the actual outcomes nor officially ever recorded as supporting such. In other words "hear no evil, see no evil and smell no evil". There now, if that's not being a team player, I clearly don't understand what is, as this level of devoted cultism should fulfill every known Club standard and rule (among many groups it worked for, was the Roman's, Hitler and still works for the NSA/DoD). Actually we need a few more of those monkeys, covering "feel no evil" (speaking of remorse), taste no evil and how about "think no evil" (that's the monkey without a brain).

In other words; with any focus and/or regard to my discovery, if you can't apparently touch it, look at it from all angles and perhaps piss on it, according to NASA it doesn't exist and, furthermore no matters what the image is showing or the fact that all of your opposition has so far totally failed to support their interpretations (with not one qualifying observational image of their own) means, that a discovery of this stature is to be ignored at all cost. Will, so far that "all cost" has been working quiet well, like 12 years worth and counting, all multi-hundred billions worth of essentially fruitless endevers to locate other signs of life. Such a deal or, perhaps "steal" is the more correct term.

Another one of my realizations deals with having to prove yourself wrong: (this being sort of like hanging yourself)
As it seems that others are always near by to help with the task of destroying opportunities. To help fulfill this never ending quest, I was being told or instructed this for example; simply because I have not managed to identify such similar grandiose formations anywhere else, such as on Earth or of any other planet or moon (though if you looked at my URL you would have seen that I have located two other worthy sites, just nowhere as substantial as the first site), that this alone was somehow proof that what is displayed at "GUTH Venus" is just simply not there, even though the highly reliable spy quality SAR imaging clearly captured it in 8-bit detail as well as at the excellent perspective of 43 degrees, but again, according to my warm and fuzzy critics, it just is not there, nothing whatsoever, at least not there as long as I apparently choose to identify it as being potentially artificial.

If I were to change my discovery as to re-specify all of these complex (one-of-a-kind highly unusual formations) as structurally looking items as being purely of common yet merely unusual planetary terrain formations, then I guess, I am to believe these highly unusual shapes do in fact exist, just exactly like all the surrounding territory of understandable lava flows, rock formations and erosion, except that these artificial looking items are simply so totally outstanding as being perhaps the one and only known (ever recorded) existence of any such complex formations, especially in such concentration and then unified into an infrastructure lkie that of resembling a freaking planetary habitat community.

So, if I am understanding all this NASA cult thing;  apparently, as long as you are in the fullest agreement with pre-existing beliefs (status quo) and, firmly conform strictly to whatever pretentious astronomy standards, you can in fact discover and claim whatever your heart desires, just don't go over the line by pointing at others that were originally sworn as responsible for obtaining such discoveries and establishing such "truths", especially as being not only somewhat incompetent but intentionally obstructive because, that is what true astronomy and/or the exploration discovery process of what everything is apparently all about (a whole lot of ass/butt covering via continuous brown nosing).

This astronomy game is obviously a well conceived and sacred fun sport of bashings at the taxpayer's as well as humanity's expense (be damn the cost or subsequent impact or repercussions upon all of humanity). Now there is apparently one other important cult rule having to deal with sportsmanship, that which clearly forbids others to even look at possibilities, plus furthermore forbidding anyone attempting to see whatever positive aspects of whatever (only purely negative thoughts and subsequent bashings are to be allowed) and, I guess this must be why so many astronomy experts must die knowing their life long endeavors were all going to be so pointless as long as they were alive and, that some entitled newcomer will have to take all the credit of your hard work and visions.

Now, I do believe I'm starting to truly understand these complex astronomy game rules but, please help me out if I've managed to leave something out, as I certainly don't want others thinging I'm unwilling to conform (the Aryan race has nothing on me, hale Hitler).

At this point, in order for my discovery to ever be accepted, I am to believe this;  if amid litterally dozens of highly complex features (including that of well established and understood natural terrain) if something truly stands out as looking like a very substantial reservoir, having that of a fairly complex solid surround structure and hosting a fluid center (SAR signal absorbing content), as that recorded by a proven reliable (NSA spy grade SAR) digital imaging technology and, if this so happens to also involve a fairly long and complex yet extremely rational inter-connection to the center of another "quad set" or cluster of reservoirs, of which then appear as being not only collected into a significant geometrical group but that as clearly situated above ground, I am to guess, without having other qualifying proof, all of this observation is meaningless dribble, which must also stipulate that essentially all of the total imaging acquired of that planet is to be considered as equally dribble, unless of course you concede that everything is purely comprised of natural origins, then NASA and the entire world of astro planetary knowledge praises and rewards you for your incredible discovery of purely natural formations (Wopdedo, I guess you just won yourself a Nobell, like discovering "ICE" on Mars, who would have guessed?).

Observation-ology:  Now that's the right ticket, I am becoming a world renowned observationologist.
My degree in observation-ology comes from the collage of WYSIWYG. Fortunately for myself, becoming such is not a prerequest or standard of being all that knowledgable about most other specialized astronomy issues, in fact, knowing lessor of what is technically possible allows for somewhat truer unbiased visual comprehension, based upon one's real world (first hand or first eye in this instance) observations, which allows this highly specialized and experienced talent to take fullest priority over other perceived facts and notions, such as all those recorded Apollo facts as having to be perceived as ultimate "truths", even though this evidence was based upon their infinitely moderated chemical and geology evaluations as well as the specialized nonatmospheric knowledge, as being their primary and supposed learned expertise that has been faithfully upholding their club standards. By that of simply ignoring obvious visual observational possibilities and, then ignoring the realities of conventional photographic capabilities and limitations as well as the obvious ease by which such evidence (especially when those negatives are being intentionally withheld) can be altered to support whatever the situation calls for.

Likewise, being an observation-ologist pretty much excludes the superior talents of those braille NASA image interpreters, however, for realizing what existing at "GUTH Venus" you will need to have sufficient direct optical exposures as well as first-hand experiences (prefferably prior to your going blind), including some actual photographic as well as digital imaging capabilities pretty much down pat, and don't bother to ask me who or what the hell "pat" is (it's just another phrase I use).

Lately (hell, for the last 16 months and counting), I've seen this happen time and time again; as I improve upon my imaging enlargements and thereby better comprehend what the SAR imaging has captured and, I further describe what clearly shows itself as that being multiple artificial elements (totally out of the ordinary from within their equally imaged and likewise enlarged natural surroundings) and, that which is formulated into highly rational looking compounds of structures along with their logical and/or rational roadways, reservoirs and suspension bridge infrastructure, while my critics (obviously smarter then myself and being formally paid for such) see this as absolutely nothing whatsoever (most being so freaking good at what they know, accomplish this observational feat within a minute or so and without actual experience, some are such total wizards that they can even accomplish this craft without even looking at what I have to offer) and, they otherwise nearly all seem to support this obviously highly motivated cult thing because, they simply admire and choose to adhere to the pre-established notions, those which have previously stated that nothing intelligent whatsoever could have ever existed on the planet Venus, and so, regardless of whatever my multiple declarations seem to appear as worthy artificial elements, I'm to channel and think exactly the same way as all others, to simply disregard such complex formations as anything except being purely natural.

I've been told many times that "all of these formations are very common to Venus", as purely natural formations existing on a forever hot and dead planet (even though others as well as myself can not yet locate other such examples nor explain how such highly unusual "one-of-a-kind" so called natural formations ever occurred in the first place and/or point to any other such examples from any planet [including Earth] that are even remotely as sophisticated yet of purely natural formation).

According to most researchers (essentially all that I've contacted so far), long before the Magellan mission, we apparently already understood or at least were being prestigiously informed that life of any form on Venus was an impossibility. So, I guess it's too bad we all had to rediscover all of this too late, that we apparently forked out billions in order to acquire all that new Magellan dribble and, then further wasted all the subsequent time and resources analyzing such, when we obviously should have been going after deep space conjectures as well as those multi-billion-dollar lethal microbes existing on Mars. And, just think, if we didn't waste all that Magellan effort and further squander all the subsequent analysis and apparently pointless archiving, as well as having to continue with supporting the required dribble archive facilities along with the required dribble staffing, I'll just bet we could have acquired those Mars microbes by now and, just think of what our NAS/DoD could conjure up in the way of superior biological weapons, you know, just in case those so called terrorist ever start thinking they have a plan, we could infect them with Mars. Now if you have some other perspective(s) as to why and how those multi-hundred-billion-dollar Mars microbes are to be utilized, speak up.

If I understand this Mars microbe concept and, I think I am really trying, it's at least another decade or more worth of extremely costly technology investments and, then the actual go-fetch missions (so far we are looking perhaps at 100 billion or so) and, then we also need to be developing upon the "safe house" in which these essential microbes are to be sheltered and cultured into something you and I need (just another hundred billion or so for that) and, mean while, Venus is zipping past every 18 months with the remains or perhaps existence of a truly complex civilization (perhaps a lot smarter then us, hell, I'll bet much older and I'll also bet obviously smarter).

As I see it, the up coming opportunity (October 2002) and associated cost for anyone to laser communicate (being that we and many other nations already basically own this equipment, admittedly some of ours is even "Star Wars" operational) is perhaps a couple million or so bucks (plus kicking in a little incentive prize moneys, perhaps another 5 or 10 million for various "first contact" accomplishments). All toll; a budget almost as much as it takes to merely launch another NSA cloak and dagger mission. Gee, I guess we can't afford that to happen and, even more so, we most certainly can't admit that our beloved NASA failed us (again) so badly and, for at least the past 12 years worth and otherwise on so many other occasions dropped the ball. Naturally, in the eyes of NSA/DoD, NASA has only been spectacular and a true godsend, so this review of NASA obviously depends upon your point of view and, mine is obviously not sharing the same morals as that of NSA/DoD.

Copyright © 2000/2002 - Brad E. Guth
GUTH Venus: All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: Brad Guth - Brad Guth / IEIS   ~  1-253-8576061
created: June 26, 2002

Brad Guth / IEIS IEIS-Brad@Juno.com