NASA's bloody way or Else

by; Brad Guth / IEIS

This is a fairly old page that simply didn't read all that well and, perhaps it still sucks but, perhaps now it's worth another read.

I've been reminded from time to time, most often by that of an official NASA individual, as to the matter that I should strongly reconsider only the possibility that absolutely everything in my discovery is purely natural and otherwise entirely common as to the planet Venus. To reconsider that my findings (of there being anything the least bit "artificial") are somehow entirely misrepresenting the facts. In other words, what my eyes see and my experienced brain alleges, is not really there to be seen.

Because of this often repeated analogy by my loyal critics; suggesting that my discovery is entirely bogus and, that I should simply retreat into the nearest black hole of nothingness. Towards my understanding of this new obligation, I'll try my best as to reapply every aspect of what others and I can see in these SAR images, as if purely based upon the greater wisdom and direct advice of NASA, as well as their vast army of pro-NASA Borg types, as to everything being purely of fairly common to be found natural origins.

Please try to understand, I do consider myself a firm pro-NASA type, at least of the original format as pertaining to honest research and exploration of space and, towards the open development of whatever technologies, of whatever should make everything happen for us, and/or for considering upon whomever else there is to consider, as we certainly don't want to leaving out those nifty Mars microbes nor even clumping moon dust. I am however becoming somewhat concerned as to NSA/DoD agendas getting in the way of the "truths", let alone syphoning off and subsequently redirecting so much of our essential resources and talents for their privet agendas, which I mistakenly thought had their sworn duties as to comply with the humanitarian aspects of what our nation and that of NASA supposedly stands for. Apparently I've gotten that part all wrong.

Regarding the primary discovery site "GUTH Venus #1";

Starting off with an honest effort as to comply to the known research as based upon the recorded geological, atmospherics and associated planetary understandings; As a NASA Borg's point of view, perhaps this following effort is how I might have to otherwise describe the contents of what is clearly within the engagements of the specified discovery area(s). Towards keeping things as bloody simple as possible, I'll focus just upon that massive channel consideration, that which I previously claimed ran smack through the heart of downtown "GUTH Venus", before this so called lava channel heads itself off towards the North East.

For a better overall view of THE PRIMARY LAVA CHANNEL: (sort of lava, including everything else in the book)

I do happen to agree, fully, that this channel is something quite natural, however, I do not necessarily concur that it was purely created and later eroded via whatever lava flows and furthermore, I do concur that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever artificial associated with it's origin or subsequent erosion. This channel issue alone, as something which according to the official record, was a natural formation of perhaps that of a rille developed or subsequently carved out by massive lava flows and then of subsequent other undocumented erosions. Apparently, even though this sort of errosion looks as though moisture derived, this sort of channel is not specified by any official documentation as representing any typical erosion pattern as derived from moisture considerations and, otherwise most certainly not representing anything officialy from active lava flows at the present time of this original imaging.

Sticking with the purely "everything is natural formula", as that being created purely by sort of lava; This analogy means lava which originated from the head or beginnings of this channel did so as very much like moisture accumulations would have managed. By going directly to the NASA original image and equally enlarging and enhancing upon just the head area of this channel, there is clearly no sign whatsoever of any one volcanic or even clusters of lesser significant volcanic ejection points that could have supported the beginnings of this massive (death valley like) Grand Canyon channel. So, we must then assume that perhaps hundreds of much smaller lava feeds opened and delivered their contents and sustained their flows for thousands of years (this is certainly entirely possible, just never recoded elsewhere, but none the less possible).

Starting from their fairly mountainous origin(s), the head(s) of this channel are those obviously elevated (at least 6 to perhaps 7+ km worth). The duration or length of this channel has been something geologically fairly well established, subsequently thoroughly mapped and certainly imaged clear as a bell (with the further North you travel, the greater potential detail has been acquired because, I do believe the Magellan SAR imaging offered a somewhat lesser altitude advantage to work with), however, as this channel migrates itself NE, the width and depth significantly increase with somewhat the expected moisture like spread and erosion patterns rather then of anything previously recorded depicting recorded lava flows which generally accumulate and otherwise build upon land mass.

If we assume that the head area or starting zone of this channel were being supplied by those hundreds of lesser lava streams and, that such lesser sources accumulated into a sufficient primary lava flow, that which caused certain channeling affects, but then only as generally so, as this well documented and recorded process goes (at least as that based upon every other recorded lava channel formation on record), even on a super hot planet such as Venus, lava cools itself off and then it proceeds to accumulate at various locations and further proceeds to create highly recognizable patterns (that is if we presume that gravity and weather patterns are at least somewhat stable). Lava also generally builds itself upon land mass and basically adds vertical mass to the observable environment, rather then subtracting and redepositing as would have been required of creating such a massively deep channel (grand canyon like) affect. Moisture or perhaps even extensive mud flows on the other hand may have been represented by just such a channelling occurrence, but what do I know.

Our SAR imaging of this area is nearly that of 3D, by that of capturing all of this with a good 43 perspective.

If this merely were that of an old weathered lava channel, as NASA's moderated documents so intently imply; (at least I'm assuming not that of currently flowing lava), then why are there such clear signs of multiple fresh secondary flows emitting from the very structured looking (unusually fortified looking) walls or banks of this primary channel. If these secondary paths are not so old nor smoothed from those suggested acids and weathering, but showing relatively sharp and unexpertly rough features, then what other such elements (besides lava) could be accommodating such odd behaviour?. And, why is there a distinctively fluid looking big ass arch of at least several hundred meters (nearly 1 km worth, more yet if you take the side of my opponents), as clearly associated within one of these supposedly dead secondary channel relief flows, being SAR captured as medium to dark gray (in SAR imaging, as that which represents something either soft and/or of a moving target and/or of somewhat other signal absorbing such as fairly none-metallic and even more likely as being consistent as something that's clearly fluid, or at least mud like).

If this primary channel feature and all of the associated secondary issues are so purely representative of the other common Venus lava channels, then why are there so many multiple tunnel looking associations with that upper bank and, then of other tunnel like features seemingly rationally aligned with (as well as seemingly penetrating) the lower bank walls?. I've certainly looked as well as my opponents have looked elsewhere, so far, there's been no such luck in our locating another such example of anything remotely natural, not even of anything Earth unless it's been man made and, as man made or man influenced there's lots of similar examples to select from. Oddly, the SAR imaging did not introduce such geometrical forms out of thick Venus air, as other channel like opportunities seem not to include such aligned tunnels nor a freaking bridge consideration that's associated with a terrain winding and gravity alluding roadbed, least of all having multiple quarry sites and then an assortment of such symmetrically geometrical vertical structures that so closely assimilate that of a bloody township.

If this channel is so typical of other such Venus lava channels, then why can't my supposedly vastly superior opponents accommodate their stance with their own such qualified observational images, as those sufficiently opposing to what I'm considering?. How hard can it possibly be, for others (supposedly so much smarter then I) to support their contentions, as to their so easily stipulating that virtually everything at "GUTH Venus" is purely natural. If others so staunchly opposing my discovery supposedly have good if not better examples of such lava formed landscapes, of channels and associated complex features, as those equally showing the same if not better examples of massive erosions with all sorts of tunnel like issues, apparent secondary flowing "fluid arches" and, even that of having their very own suspension bridge like associations, then how is it (since others nor I can't locate any supportive imaging for everything being purely natural), their opposing arguments are specifying without sufficient proof that everything is so purely natural (apparently as based solely upon their superior observational considerations of squat), how can this pathetic opposition be taken seriously if at all?

OK;  we know that the SAR imaging resolution, as far as final mapping was being considered, was established by the Magellan mapping team at roughly 75 meters (I'll certainly have a great deal more to offer on this subject). We also have the established and recorded the perspective angle of acquiring these exceptional images at 43º (nearly 3D ideal). We further know that every pixel was comprised of at least 4 confirming looks (in some instances up to 8 looks were averaged into one pixel). We know that SAR imaging offers no lens distortion, it sees exactly the same with or without illumination (thereby no visual illusions) and, it has the ability to penetrate certain substances and thus reflects various (well established and thoroughly catalogued) signal qualities based upon the average composition and average angle of each and every target/pixel area, where man or lizard made structures will certainly stand out from that of any natrual terrain. We also have the ultimate "truth" factor of everyone having access to these original digital files, so that tampering with the image is simply ruled out (that alone has been something which can't even be said of those Apollo photos). We all have access to the same if not better certified digital enlargement solutions, those which can be easily reversed in order to verify the enlargement impact as having little if any impact upon distorting or otherwise altering the original image content (in other words; digital enlarging upon an area will simply not arbitrarily modify selective pixels, let alone rearrange them into something as indicating rationally intelligent functions nor as for having a rational community of infrastructure, as the photo software is simply not something AI).

The consideration that Venus was not always so hot (so greenhouse) and that if combined with the elevated nature of such mountain like areas, then by combining those issues of sufficient elevation and their seasonal 2900 hour worth of nighttime could just as well have created sufficient moisture like accumulations, those accumulations of the past would certainly have been capable of originating and eventually causing these very same channel patterns and, where it seems this conjecture has to be somewhat if not a whole lot more likely then not. The fact that under such greater atmospheric pressures, certain atmospheric elements (containing H2O) could likely accumulate and eventually run-off in an entirely similar manner, as would acidic rain as certainly another worthy consideration, of which those NASA files somewhat entirely fail to recognize upon (even long after the fact of my introducing the possibilities).

The other significant associations with this channel, one of which is looking as that of an active "fluid arch", is something that's clearly originating as beeing fed from the lower bank of the primary channel and then re-emerging from that of the secondary channel is clearly something that has been causing and/or affecting a further continuation of this secondary channel/erosion pattern, as a notable continuation from exactly where this massive fluid arch falls itself back onto the surface of Venus. This fluid arch issue is certainly something highly and truly unusual to say the very least, especially if this happens to materialize from that of a supposedly old/inactive lava channel. If this is an old established arch that is solidified in time, then that's yet another first and biggest ever discovery.

As for considering those I believe could be surviving on Venus;  If such a channel were somehow fluid/lava active, then there is obviously the greater possibility of there being considerable geothermal energy conversion and/or opportunities of chemical processes occurring, with that issue certainly becoming a greater reality then not. In order for any life to have survived on Venus, besides obvious evolution of life to have occurred, which might have by now minimized their dependency upon not having so much free water nor oxygen (perhaps as little as 0.1% O2 as having to be sufficient), that effort of their surviving would certainly still be requiring forms of energy resources. With such energy applied, one could subsequently extract and/or manufacture such elements as H2 and O2 and, the rest is history.

However folks, if any portion of this channel were the least bit active as to somehow form into anything capable of supplying that fluid arch and, if all the previous exploration missions had so failed to detect any signs of such massive thermal signatures, of exactly what such a massively long, large and extremely deep eroded active lava channel would have to offer, then also, if we are to be regarding those secondary erosion channels as being the greater possibility of still hosting active fluids, this is clearly something pointing towards a whole lot of other promise that is yet sufficiently fluid/hydrolic like and, of potential fluid energy which is obviously not so purely lava hot. Perhaps realizing upon this item, we simply have ourselves another geological winner as for being another discovery first, that of fluids capable of others extracting energy from. Understanding that obtaing energy from such natural resources is a darn good thing, especially on a toasty hot planet.

Further understanding that such fluids need not be water, as it could even be a hydrogen peroxide (h2o2) or, it could certainly be something entirely more common like hot mineral oils, either of which would remain fluid and stable under such temperature and associated pressure. Under the atmospheric pressures and mostly that of CO2 composition of their atmosphere, there are several entirely viable considerations (including many that would otherwise be unstable as here on Earth) that would remain fluid under such heated and atmospheric pressure conditions (obviously that toasty environment is not being so hot at night and lesser yet at such elevations and perhaps even more so less heated once well established into their long season of nighttime).

Somehow the very idea that such a massive canal/canyon, as flowing NE and eventually deploying into that extensive lake bed like configuration, this offers far too many opportunities for those survivors of Venus to have ignored. At least I would have to believe, every conceivable natural energy potential would have become prized and perhaps even highly defended if that were the sole means by which your life depended. Whether that should represent high ground for the bemefits of the nighttime atmospherics, geothermals and/or simply gravity flows capable of creating useful mechanical work, any such natural resources (especially on a greenhouse planet) would have become invaluable, then obviously further developed upon, by perhaps reinforcing those containment banks and otherwise enhanced by whatever any dam(s) and reservoirs could facilitate. Energy obviously becoming the ultimate wealth and obvious necessity, as by which oxygen and water can be reformulated and/or gathered from those cool nighttime clouds and accumulated (stored for future usage), then other elements produced by the process of utilizing such energy resources and/or by simply burning off amounts of whatever with a little h2o2. Then there would logically become those tunnel issues and of various transports to/from either canyon sides and/or that of further management of whatever channel flow discharge via control gates, quite possibly even a suspended cable transport of pod arrangements would have been logically developed and most certainly that of a bridge (if at all possible) so as to accommodate heavy transports needing to cross such an expansive and deep canyon.

Considering their atmosphere having so little free oxygen; and the fact that it's reasonably hot (especially daytime), the likelihood of their developing suitable environment controlled transporter pods (including for their canyon cable crossings) would logically have been employed so that even lizard life could somehow manage in spite of their testy situation and, apparently now even more so in spite of our crack wizards at NASA being so freaking blind because, well over a decade ago their plight was so thoroughly being ignored and, perhaps that was no accident, as in the eyes of Lord NASA, those heathens on Venus may have all been Islamic lizard Muslims, whereby absolutely no matters what their consequences, Lord NASA was certainly not going to lift a finger, especially when we apparently can't even document how to safely land and return our radiation proof astronauts from our own moon, as otherwise, someone might just start asking a few too many questions again, such as; if we can supposedly go to and return from the moon, then why can't we simply return another Magellan to Venus (at least establish VL2), especially when approximately every 18 months the distance [such as November 4th and 5th, 2002] is as little distance as 105 times that of our moon); how hard can that be?

If you by chance still do not get my drift by now,  trust me on this,  you're obviously so pathetically dense that you never will;  This Venus discovery has become something so outrageous and so worthy that NASA can't stuff enough Prozac or Crack up their nose, as to allude the coming outfall of what all of this now represents. And yes, this certainly represents that you and the entire world have been seriously lied to for decades and of much worse things. Concerted efforts by their vast army(s) of pro-NASA supporters, as to bashing this discovery and otherwise to blatantly ignore the "truths" about what's situated on the planet Venus, this ongoing orchestrated effort is representing just the tip of their melting iceberg. And you thought global warming was responsible for all that ice melting, when it was really from all the runaway steam being vented by those NASA/NAS/DoD hidden agendas and then more so over implementing the next ten levels of necessary "spin" and "damage controls" upon this "GUTH Venus" discovery and, then also upon what ever else I've had to dig up in defence of my efforts. I believe their next level of "dog wagging" spin is clearly going thermonuclear.

To my 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: April 14, 2001

Brad Guth / IEIS