Now you see it and, Now you don't

( Venus simply can't be imaged by anything assiciated with or even indirectly funded by NASA )
( by; Brad Guth / IEIS    updated: November 08, 2002 )

Even though I keep referring to Club NASA as sort of a cult or possibly even to some as a primary spoke of a ruse conspiracy, this adventure is not about any actual cult thing and certainly of no conspiracy based out of NASA (most government agencies simply aren't that smart), unless there's such as being a "conspiracy of really stupid cults". This moment is merely about our bureaucracies along with our never ending cold-war at it's finest hour, as inaptly gleaming like a huge pile of hose pucky, residing atop the highest bluff as overlooking what's left of humanity. In other words, this belated discovery of "life NOT as we might know it" existing on Venus is simply regarding yet another freaking bureaucratic oversight, one that I uncovered (in spite of NASA, as well as in spite of whatever flak you and your associates can throw at this).

Keeping Hubble off target and TRACE hidden behind Earth is hardly going to work forever, as others (amateurs) can see Venus, perhaps not anywhere as good but, likely good enough (all depends upon how much artificial light Venus tosses back at us). A 0.1 degree beam of xenon format, pulsed driven so as to deliver 100^9 cd might just do the trick (in spite of NASA) and, certainly 100^12 cd is something entirely within reason, as well as at much lesser divergence. As CO/O2 fuel and subsequent other energies are not all that much of a compromise, as there's also the potential of their having amounts of H2O2 and of whatever petroleum/chemical alternatives. Trust me, even batteries work really super great on Venus, especially if carried aloft in massive airships above those nighttime clouds (those luke warm clouds are already offering 30% H2SO4, so what more could you possibly ask for?).

Unlike yourself, I make mistakes, like my dyslexic dropping of letters, flipping of letters and numbers, even entire reverse syntax (reading almost anything I do in reverse should give you a clue) plus, often (because I'm so inpatient) I'm misunderstanding what others are stipulating and a host of other issues and, I'll likely be making another thousand or two such mistakes before all this is over. Fortunately, my mistakes don't seem to involve the wrongful taking of human life, nothing like the "USS LIBERTY" or of those "Apollo missions" (not being limited to astronauts), "flight 800", "9/11" and so on, as I'm certain you and I could go on about all sorts of interesting and otherwise really big and stupid mistakes associated with a good deal of carnage. On the other hand, agencies like NASA have their true boss and subsequent agendas to attend to and, that obviously necessitates their keeping whatever lids tightly in place (somewhat like nuclear waste; as in forever). It's regarding those lids that interest my goat, as it seems some have started to come lose and, sticky smelly stuff is ooozing out.

Now then, on behalf of my devoted critics;  how about if NASA had been the one discovering what I did (they certainly could have done such 13 years ago). It seems likely that for all the right and moral reasons, someone (especially of any agency or department desperately in need of funding continuation) would have been processing yet another one of their "info-commercials", as frequently accommodated by NOVA. If that pathetic "Mars face" fiasco was of any criteria, as where additional millions were invested and every possible effort was thrown at that opportunity, as for whatever good PR could possibly have been generated, then by that standard of what's existing on Venus is at least 100 times more revealing and subsequently more "extraordinary truth" worthy, as well as for incorporating the associated site infrastructure that was sorely missing from that "Mars face", not to mention a planet that's (unlike Mars) hosting a variety of natural energy resources to boot.

If NASA were to describe the "GUTH Venus" site(s) as being an entirely natural occurrence; what and/or how would their descriptive wording have differed?

For just such an example, I'll offer that NASA might have stated about these formations as being entirely natural, as perhaps in this following manner:

Identified in the cropped image are the following most unlikely artificial considerations (items 1 through 25+), as even though these multiple issues are each of extremely and significantly altered patterns of relatively complex geometries, indicating the highest degree of symmetrically rational looking attributes, all of which having never been recorded elsewhere (including Earth) and, even though we simply have no other recorded data base by which to associate such patterns with anything that's even the least bit natural, none the less, these Venus attributes (all of them) are to be considered as purely unexplained natural formations until proven otherwise.

OK folks, now how about if NASA wanted to exploit (again for all the right reasons) upon the idea that these patterns were most likely artificial:

Identified in the cropped image are the following most likely as artificial considerations (items 1 through 25+), as these multiple issues are revealing their extremely regular and significantly altered patterns as opposed to what's surrounding all of them, as their surroundings being most likely natural and, of thereby sufficiently contrasting and differentiating so as to be sufficiently depicting such other attributes of complex geometrical artificial patterns, which are clearly indicating the highest degree and order of being symmetrically rational attributes. Being that such formations have never before been recorded elsewhere (including Earth), as far as representing anything natural and, because we in fact have such a large recorded SAR data base by which to associate such patterns with otherwise well known man made considerations, as those being equally associated to their surroundings of SAR recordings of nearly everything other that's been considered as natural, thereby these complex Venus attributes are most likely artificial until proven otherwise.

Since I'm not perfect and obviously you are, I'm certain that my wording is entirely insufficient if not entirely incorrect, as either way, NASA would have spent perhaps hundreds of thousands and/or more likely millions prior to even composing a damn thing, then word-smithed the living hell out of every phrase and syntax consideration before submitting it as to being published. God forbid should they misspell or introduce a syntax error (at least that way, even incorrect information seems entirely believable, as why would NASA go to such effort and expense if otherwise?, first of all it's not their money, so naturally they're going to spend and spend until those cows come home and, you already know what happened to those cows).

Since no one other was offering their interpretations of what such strikingly artificial attributes could actually be, I eventually applied what I feel should be worth considering and, with some further effort, I did locate supporting technology along with physics and other science that makes such rational conjectures seem more possible then not. Only my opponents, those trained by NASA's Sgt. Schultz´ and Col. Wilhelm Klink, whom continue to "see nothing" are those opposing every possible consideration, yet without submitting one lousy SAR image that supports their pathetic stance.

Seems that my opposition has chosen to ignore all likelihood of absolutely anything (irregardless of any new facts or of the more likely then not considerations), as based upon the notion (which I happen to concur with) that man can not possibly live on Venus. The only exception I can continue to offer is that, I was never including Earth humans within any of my equations (that should be really stupid and, as for others to even consider that I was contemplating human life, those folks are obviously even more dense then rock), not that modern technology couldn't resolve something on behalf of accommodating our pathetic form of life, at least as for exploratory missions, but once again, my trustworthy opposition will not have any of that, as they simply want Venus and myself to go away.

The part about making Venus go away;   Yes in deed, if nothing else, that I've accomplished. As for the past 20+ months (that's since the inception of my discovery) and into the foreseeable future, there's been no imaging upon Venus and in fact, even TRACE, SOHO and obviously our multi trillion dollar Hubble investment can't seem to even locate let alone track and image upon Venus (claiming that such a dark planet image as existing in a sufficiently dark and solar safe zone simply can't be viewed upon because of firmware auto-protect features). So, I've certainly made Venus disappear, either that or, I've created an artificial gravitational lens that warps light totally around that planet (pretty neat trick if I don't say so myself). As otherwise, Venus being but 105 times further away then our moon, potentially viewed as nearly 3.5% the diameter of our moon and, for several days it's situated at roughly 6+ degrees south of the sun. With appropriate software overrides, I believe even Hubble could be safely viewing Venus at this juncture and, certainly as it travels further away, yet not and, even TRACE simply can't seem to locate it anymore (pretty hard to do when you have been recently situated mostly behind Earth), or more likely as thanks again to my gravitational lens trick as for placing Venus out of sight and thereby out of mind. Earth based observatories, with their appropriate front-end filters could safely view and image upon those nighttime clouds of Venus (obviously this effort is not for identifying anything cloud related, so not all that much of a telescope is even required, portable ones will do just fine), even if for gathering atmospheric data as viewing through the bright crescent portion, however, once again folks, my nifty gravitational lens trick has apparently made Venus simply vanish altogether, either that or I certainly wouldn't what to be the astronomer hard at work when those "nondisclosure cops" (men in black) start showing up.

I have but one final question:
How do you correctly spell and utilize the word and/or meaning of "Duh!"?

In case you're having difficulty locating my research; as an alternate I'm listed in as "guthvenus" in TRIPOD as well as "bradguth" in GEOCITIES, thus you can become safely involved without your being moderated by anyone attempting to apply "spin" or "damage control" on behalf of NASA/NSA/DoD.

To the INDEX page: GUTH Venus (with loads of updates)
alternate URL's:  and
Copyright © 2000/2002 - Brad E. Guth
GUTH Venus: All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: Brad Guth - Brad Guth / IEIS   ~  1-253-8576061
created: October 29, 2002

Brad Guth / IEIS