The vast majority of scholarly astronomy, that of space research and exploration, has been heavily based upon and focused by the founding protocols, principles and achievements of early NASA and, more so supported by their loyal following and promise of government jobs and highly sought after benefits, as well as access to the majority of associated rewards, grants and subsequent research opportunities. All of which has been continually fostered by and/or directly sourced from the inner circles of NASA, that which accepts or rejects a plan of action through strict moderating and, based upon the very foundation of what I've come to realize is a skewed information gathering process and by overseeing whatever definition of "truths" are to be established (as those to become officially supported and published as supposedly reliable facts), but always carefully channeled so as to best interface with the previously established "truths" or perceptions thereof. At the obvious risk of irreparable long-term harm, this method clearly enables those most negatively affected or most challenged to easily introduce sufficient variables and essential safety's (such as their "non-disclosure" policy) which clearly offers filters in order to protect programs as well as individuals.

If the foundation of "truths" are to be kewed in favor of conforming to established or prescribed knowledge, especially knowledge which is currently being challenged because the numbers and facts are no longer sufficient and thereby implying a greater degree of non-confidence, then the established knowledge base of other associated facts must equally be challenged and, those responsible for such skewed results held (retroactively) accountable, as well as all pertinent documentation and references eventually up-dated as to show the corrections and/or full removal of all such unsubstantiated claims.

The extraordinary claim of America landing, walking on, and as a result returning with lunar samples (samples which as of today [30+ years after the fact] have yet to be identified as non-Earth origin) demands extraordinary proof, which obviously can not be so easily entrusted by those directly involved, such as from images of the lunar landscape, especially those depicting astronauts and their equipment bathed in a halo of illumination (illuminated "hot spots") with sufficient fill-in lighting to detect minute details of their dark side and, yet this same film exposure is somehow totally excluding otherwise highly vibrant stars (of at least twice the illumination as viewed from Earth) within the otherwise pure blackness of the lunar sky is simply no longer good enough as proof positive evidence (in fact, this total absence is clearly the exact opposit of proof and, so easily avoidable by the sheer numbers of missions and from the reported tens of thousands of negatives acquired, giving ample opportunity to have avoided this questionable outcome, at least from the Apollo-12 and later missions).

The fact that other officially photographed examples exist (captured by another official NASA camera and of equal film) which have in fact clearly obtained sufficient stars along with the primary illuminated subject, which this evidence conclusively indicates that for some yet undisclosed official reason(s) the introduction of stars was intentionally filtered from the vast majority of Apollo imaging. This photo alteration being a time consuming and often difficult (costly) task, further represents that some considerable cause and/or agenda was being fulfilled. Lack of direct access to those negatives in question further proves that there is something to hide, as such inspection need not require nor in any manner impose damage or loss of such film.

The additional fact that NASA has been so unable to demonstrate or even show their documentation movie film(s) of the essential 1/6th scale lunar lander test flights, further demonstrates that the probability of our not possessing the required technology in order to safely deploy and retrieve astronauts to/from the lunar surface and, this issue alone represents that the reported photographic imaging of the majority if not all Apollo missions is entirely in question. Then also, the basic overview or broad scope of technology involved with the Apollo mission capability has to be placed into question, along with the entire foundation of associated research, as that being at best flawed and, that much of our subsequent research data may now to be questionable if not thoroughly discredited. Keeping our Apollo investment(s) in mind, we're talking about several hundred billions worth of 1970's dollars and, we are still paying off individuals, research labs and supporting institutions mired in this whole Apollo/lunar issue.

It seems odd that we today do not have a robotic nor manned reusable (purely rocket powered) craft that can be safely introduced into any of our latest missions or even as for demonstration here on Earth. Perhaps this is because stabilized flight via fly-by-wire modulated rocket engines is still in development (as no media or news broadcast has yet to authenticate any such accomplishment). A space craft falling (already traveling at thousands of miles per hour and gravity accelerating) being capable of a controlled landing, with sufficient propellant lasting from a 70 mile orbit separation until safe touchdown plus, supporting sufficient capability as to sustain and allow a crew of three along with lunar samples to not only return to orbit but to sufficiently accelerate so as to mate with the command module has not been independently collaborated (apparently only the most inner circles of NASA know of this technology and are unwilling to share, demonstrate it or even allow the original film documentation to speak for itself).

It was never my original intention and, I do not wish to single handed expose to the world that our Apollo missions may have become an elaborate ruse, I simply have not managed to uncover the collaborating documentation as to the eye witness evidence and/or original film(s) that would have proved we managed what NASA claims (many individuals that could have answered questions are not speaking or have met with untimely accidents). NASA opponents have been long convinced that the published facts and the numbers, including the imaging and those now highly questionable lunar samples have been all along representing clear signs that our NASA teams had another agendas vastly more worthy then of any space exploration "truths" and, if this being the case, would explain why NASA has not and likely will not openly support my claim of our decade(+) of overlooking "past or current LIFE existing on the planet Venus".

in spite of the Apollo missions (fact or fiction), I do not wish to destroy what good NASA has accomplished, however, the price we have been paying to support the status quo has much more impact then merely hundreds of billions of dollars. NASA has essentially been wasting our human talents, resources as well as negatively impacting upon global talents and resources, further misguiding students and clearly blurring our objectives, as that necessary in order to support and/or hide the layering of every subsequent ruse. These impacts have introduced a devastating delay in true discovery and, an obvious drain upon remaining resources available for true space exploration goals has essentially been expended and, with future agendas of highly questionable morals and impudent goals representing a staggering debt which few if any Earthly benefit will arise (lest it be NSA/DoD orientated, then cost is apparently no object).

The heavy handed cloak and dagger involvement of agencies such as the NSA/DoD have made true space research (at best) secondary to global rule. Our open willingness to provoke other nations and, as to classify ethnic origins or religious beliefs is blatantly destructive as well as intentionally disruptive (counter productive) to humanitarian goals of honest discovery and the subsequent sharing of gained knowledge.

The delay and/or denial of "GUTH Venus" is another example of how far and how devastating the game has become. As I see it, human as well as alien life considerations have been on hold for at least the past decade. The opportunity to correct course and truly achieve great things is simply not on the table.

Your continued support of the status quo is sufficient proof that the ruse has come full circle, fostering new generations of misguided individuals laking the direct or first hand historical impact which has since formulated their perceived knowledge of "truths". No one wishes to believe their parents or teachers were equally foolish and so easily tricked by NASA and thereby the US government. No one wants the responsibility of believing we really pulled one off and would now have to backtrack to such an extent (taking greater responsibility and accountability for decades of global events).

Those of us (perhaps including yourself) questioning the past must contend with the flack of the establishment, as the evidence is simply not there as to truthfully support what is claimed by NASA and, on behalf of protecting the establishment therefore, remaining options are clearly not going to involve divulging facts which can be so easily if at all refuted by others.

I can best deal with observational skills, even though I have decades of experience in hydraulics, electrical, electronics (including that of radar navigational imaging), commercial grade photo graphics and even some pilot training.

I believe I am capable of authenticating that an image of something purely solar illuminated can also include sufficient content of stars (even without having to push the negative development and especially as that which should have been recorded on conventional ASA/BW film, exactly like the sort supposedly used by the Apollo missions). I am also able to state from my professional photographic work (first hand) that even my best 70mm equipment and expertise (short of intentional imagery alterations) can not create "hot spot impressions" from that of purely solar illumination, nor can I otherwise establish sufficient fill-in illumination from a mostly horizontal 10% reflective surface. I am not a rocket engineer, so therefore, without my seeing the documentation film(s) of those 1/6th scale (manned) lunar lander test flights, I certainly can not attest to their air/space worthiness. Equally, the amount of onboard energy demand, computer program loads and supposed fly-by-wire technologies, as well as the sheer quantity of sufficient rocket propellant in order to fully stabilize and properly control the (non-air-breaking gravity accelerating) decent plus, then having to discretely maneuver a safe touchdown is for others to consider (just a thought; would the lunar lander have required direct gyro stabilisation in addition to fly-by-wire computer modulated thrusters?). NASA's failing to employ the ability of Earth based radio/radar imaging as to obtain 3.85 meter or better raw resolution (my math could be in error however, I've calculated that 1.5 meter has been potentially available), so as to clearly identify the remains of all Apollo missions seems downright shameful if not intentionally deceiving (further digital photo resampling can offer another factor of 10X). The impact of radiation (several rads) upon humans as well as film has not been sufficiently disclosed nor explained as to why such easily detectable amounts were never officially recorded (apparently this information was not of concern to NASA and, as equally the film was something rather special as to not have been impacted by such aggressive and prolong radiation exposure), film temperature tolerances is simply another outstanding mystery yet to be proven (I personally know not of film rated for such extremes). Apparently to those most knowledgable of the lunar landscape and by comparison to the official mission images, identified by specific mission as well as specific camera location, simply do not convey any sense of reality nor rational content (what gives?, is NASA's lunar documentation really that bad, and if so, how then can NASA ignore my Venus discovery as any less substantiated?).

I am still trying to comprehend why all the unusual and fully unexpected objection to my "GUTH Venus" discovery. Why all the lack of motivation (other then damage control) and, why has the global community of true space research and exploration not been re-focused onto obtainable goals is becoming somewhat of a concern and, perhaps more so that I have inadvertently opened old wounds and perhaps focused a little too much attention as to the past and, I've questioned the future as well. If all this is any sort of test, to see how much I have to work with, then I'll simply do my best to derive the objective, that which may eventually offer disclosure as well as support towards my discovery, which I happen to think surpasses all other known discoveries to date.

Within astronomy, is there no shame?

"GUTH Venus" is simply that far more important and, that which must be justified above nearly anything NASA has accomplished or been associated with to date, including or not Apollo. If Apollo was in any manner a ruse, (as some including myself have recently come to believe) so be it, it's time to clean house and move on to bigger and far more obtainable goals, especially those which could develop into "first contact" among other attributes.

Return to GUTH Venus "index.html"

Copyright © 2000/2001 - Brad E. Guth
All Rights Reserved
IEIS / Webmaster: Brad Guth - BradGuth@yahoo.com