I should have known. As soon as I open another door of opportunity, for others to see what options there are, lo and behold, someone goes to work at bashing me down without one shred of anything, so I can't even address a specific statement nor reflect upon anything that going to benefit humanity, not even NASA's version of humanity. But this one could certainly be my problem; humanity, as according to my opponents, is apparently not worth jack.
If you have nothing whatsoever positive, as to add into the growing pot of the "GUTH Venus" discoveries (remembering that unlike NASA, I'll be giving credit where ever it's due), as otherwise, if you intend to support Club NASA by merely dishing out some further criticisms, as such, I might be expecting some reasonable cross examinations, at least upon the following subjects:
01 - NASA did in fact walk on the moon because ???????
a. - those Lunar Lander test flights (1/6th gravity scaled versions) did in fact fly and, here is the location of that qualified film and supporting documentation ???????
b. - those official lunar photos were in fact taken on the lunar surface because, first of all; that Lunar Lander did in fact work like a peach. Then purely as a result of that dull gray 10% reflective surface (bone dry clumping soil at that), from which not only caused all those stars to entirely disappear (either that or there was an unusual gravity lens effect) but, it also created sufficient fill-in (back lighting) illumination and, that was in addition to otherwise creating those "hot spots" as well as alternate shadows and, besides all of that, those original negatives can be easily acquired (checked out) from the vaults of ???????
c. - the official NASA photo lab was totally unfamiliar with the do's and do not's of B/W and Color films, in fact, had not ever before accomplished actual film developing and subsequent enlargements, nor learned of the secret/cult skills of applied dogging and burning so as to enhance the dark areas and/or diminish the over exposed bright areas and, this was why those photos were deceptive to some and even somewhat more so once they had been poorly scanned (with all that letter "C" shaped dust and of what even looks like dim stars as being merely scanner caused because, those dust produced stars appear as being simply in the wrong locations), so as to being offered in digital format.
d. - in addition to all of the above, those were apparently piss poor cameras (in fact, the camera manufacture offers only the most obscure examples of those lunar shots, most visitors to their huge promotional web site can't seem to find much of anything), equally poor optics and worse yet KODAK film, were all simply so limited in achieving capable resolution, so much so that the absolute best effort that color film could obtain was 50 lines per mm (100 dpmm) and, even though their B/W film offered the minimum potential of 150 lines per mm (300 dpmm) as well as nearly 4 times the contrast depth, most of the images were those acquired in color format because, the need as to document and/or survey and specifically record everything was of no real technical value to anyone. The fact that such photographic equipment with the appropriate film has been known to obtain easily twice that degree of resolution here on Earth, that obviously must have to do with having an atmosphere about, which according to pro-NASA types, this obviously enhances everything except for contrast depth (in which case, the non-atmosphere lunar environments must obviously produce far greater contrast depth, thereby better fill-in lighting effects from that mostly horizontal 10% reflective gray surface and, that must be why our Earthly photo teams use those same dull gray horizontal reflecting boards as for their fill lighting requirements).
e. - solar, let alone other cosmic radiation, was simply not being recorded as far as the mission was concerned because; it was not of any real concern. In fact, those radiation sensitive films will not only prove that insufficient radiation occurred, but along with excessive thermal cycling was also not the least bit affecting that film (must not have been the +/- 250ºF environment as previously understood), not even the least bit affected from those massive solar flares during the Apollo-16 mission, and once again, this can be easily proven because, any of those original negatives can be easily acquired (checked out) from the vaults of ???????
f. - for the past decade (perhaps much longer) NASA has had the capability of SAR imaging the lunar surface at something under 2 meters (raw) and, along with digital photo software, by which that resolution can be reliably pushed to 0.2 meters. That imaging effort is by utilizing the huge megawatt radar transmitter combined along with our VLA receiving antennas. However, lately they have been so darn busy with more important things (like supporting NSA/DoD agendas), in fact, their considerate moderation as to the usage of any other capable observatory technologies, is as such, that there has simply not been a valid opportunity for any of those, like Keck-II, to shoot the moon.
(by the way folks; when the motivation is there, it's entirely simple as to doctor or fudge upon the original digital file, so as to prove a point as to poor resolution. One such method is simply to selectively record and/or offer fewer pixels. NSA does this one all the time, moderates every image so that the public never gets their hands/eyes on anything that's not at least ten fold lessor resolution, actually, I've discovered a 20:1 ratio had been a common practice, like the shuttle SAR images of Earth were offered to the public at 30 meters, when those very same were being offed by Germany at 1.5 meters/pixel resolution and, that's 20:1)
g. - the reasons why NASA has been so against other Nations mapping the lunar surface, this is purely out of our professional concern for their avoiding any unnecessary expenses and/or duplications, not the least bit associated with covering anything up.
h. - the Hubble, especially now days, can lunar image at a public resolution of something a whole lot better then 8 meters raw (that's since the latest upgrade of resolution which was supposedly boosted from 80 meters). However, in either case, that was merely a single exposure and not from any collection of multiples or a stack of 10 or more, which could have divided that raw resolution by another factor of 10 (that's 0.8 meters or better and still not involving any digital photo software that's capable of pushing yet another factor of 10 fold) and, guess what folks, the NSA/DoD CCD sensor maintains a minimum of ten fold advantage over anything the public has access to (that's newsprint capability if imaging upon Earth and damn near pulling a serial number if imaging upon any one of those remaining Apollo mission sites). But once again, the Hubble usage has been booked solid ever since inception and for at least the next three decades, none of which is having anything to do with our moon.
i. - I certainly could go on and on, but that would be sort of pointless because, there are so many other issues (02 - the cold-wars), (03 - the 6-Day war and the USS LIBERTY fiasco), (04 - Training and Arming those Taliban al-Qaida), (05 - Training and Arming those Israeli), (06 - OOPS, the USS LIBERTY fiasco), (07 - OOPS, flight 800), (08 - OOPS, 9/11), (09 - Attacking those Taliban al-Qaida), (10 - Having to defend ourselves from God knows what next) besides those Apollo missions, as these should account for why NASA and their partners in crime (NSA/DoD) can not officially see a damn thing existing on the planet Venus, let alone attempt any sort of a simplex CW/binary-data laser effort prior to this coming October 2002.
If all that's not sufficient, I've mentioned a thing or two about our US/Mexican war (as to the taking of California) and, even a tad bit as to Cuba. I've tried to enlist and/or arouse the more religious types, but that's a no win situation, especially when I was properly informed that your God has a union contract that only deals with Earth and certainly not with any heathen Islamic lizards on Venus (so, I guess it's perfectly OK if we eat them, according to NASA, their ass is already cooked anyway).
m. - through z., then the aa's start in.
Exactly how those Apollo missions can have much of anything to do with interfering in that of an honest research as to the exploration of Venus is, or at least should be, a real mystery or, perhaps not because;
The motives (there are many, some ulterior) are certainly just about anywhere you care to look, then having the means and the opportunity, as all of this being brought/sponsored about by our "cold-wars", seems reason enough as to consider what few options there are, as for NASA to become involved with the likes of myself. I mean, I'm obviously really bad and downright trying my level best as to overthrow this entire country. I actually have no true interest in developing upon one damn thing having any regard to the planet Venus because, NASA's gospel record states quite clearly, there is not (never has been) life on the planet Venus. Period! And why I ask, shouldn't everyone buy that idea?
The very concept that so many of us have been so thoroughly snookered (including myself) and, by those obviously having "the right stuff" and, that such a persona has since been constructed about the pretense and subsequent gospel, that we Americans landed and walked on the moon, especially when all other nations have failed, means a great deal to most (I know that for 30+ years it certainly meant lots to me). I mean, it's going to be so much harder as to maintaining the global bully stance, especially if others start thinking we're not God, just darn good wizards or at least the world's best sting artist.
Either way, one should certainly stay out of our way because, we're seriously dangerous folks, especially when we're making those grandiose mistakes.
Actually, come to thinking about it, I happen to like being thought of as a wizard, a lot more better then being an American bastard.