Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

GUTH Venus is way too hot for even Bad Astronomy

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Brad Guth

unread,
Jul 25, 2003, 10:07:38 PM7/25/03
to
Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB
Discuss Bad Astronomy here!

That's sort of hard to do that if "You have been banned from this
forum"

Perhaps it had a little something to do with my space radiation page
that's not exactly favorable for supporting those Apollo missions:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm

However, this is what I first posted;

Subject/title: "Venus supports other life NOT as we know it"

In spite of my dyslexia and inabilities to tollerate those solely
intent upon destroying whatever's not there idea; first of all, this
topic is not of any mere idea, it's not a conjecture based upon
another black hole of nothingness, but of what can be seen unless
you're restricted to braille format, as there's been life NOT as we
know it and perhaps (most likely) surviving on Venus and, I sincerely
believe we (that's you and I) can sufficiently prove that point, at
least a whole lot better off than you or I can prove we've been to and
walked on the moon.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-187.htm


badastronomy reply/post;

Since the rest of you disbelievers are merely snookered Borgs, pawns
in someone others game of death and death (I've excluded "life" as
even an option because so many opposing GUTH Venus simply should have
known better), are apparently not accepting any possibility of there
being other life, even if that's pertaining to their own past and/or
future existence and, especially if that's pertaining to someone
other's existance, as though that doesn't even matter.

Unlike yourself, I've made lots of mistakes, one of which was
contacting NASA over two and a half years ago, then onto many word,
syntax and even a few math mistakes, so sue me. There's still the
remains or of what's current on Venus that's not naturally formed,
unless of course you can locate something similar that's proven as
purely natural, as I'll post a link to that and insure that you
receive all the credits.

In case you haven't bothered to notice, the foundation of this
discovery has been rather remarkably benefiting from the surrounding
rugged terrain that's about as natural as it comes, even of what
terrain is found throughout the community, of terrain that's most
likely entirely natural by every definition of geology, where this
accepted natural element is what's been further defining for the
rather markable comparison between that which is well recognized and
accepted as for being natural and, of what's otherwise most likely
artificial (as in perhaps lizard made). Where the purest and
subsequently ultra negative sort of person will only concede of what's
looking so artificial is simply representing a strange and/or unusual
collection of so many unrecorded natural things that just so happened
to be collected into a highly structured community like setting, in
this instance having it's own tarmac, it's own suspension bridge, it's
own symmetrical collection of interconnected reservoirs, it's own
highrise and other massive buildings and of it's own rigid metro
airship, plus a few spheres and parabolic issues tossed in to boot,
plus excavated roadbeds just for good community infrastructure impact.

OK, I'll suppose in theory, odds being at least a trillion to one,
this purely natural sort of complex thing could happen in nature.
Though looking at what's there to be seen, it seems rather odd to
another somewhat high degree that at 180° there'd be another couple of
sites worth a closer look-see. These sites being equally elevated and
at least one of which is indicating a similar hangar/silo for that
rigid airship. OK, so we've just crossed over the line into the
trillion-trillion to one chances of that happening in nature. I'm not
sure but, either of those seem like fairly bad odds, but then I'm not
even a member of the "Right Stuff" cult, so apparently I'm not smart
enough to know about such things. This is where you come into the
picture, with even better ideas and/or proof positives either way.

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com


Well folks, this following was yet another fairly complex reply I'd
posted at "Bad Astronomy" and, lo and behold, for whatever it's worth,
I can't seem to get any useful information information whatsoever
unless it's essentially the same as that published and/or moderated by
lord NASA.

badastronomy reply/post:

I'm not going to even try to answer every question, or even return all
the warm and fuzzy flak but, I'll give these few nice folks a try.

From: Musashi
"I am trying not to read things from your posts that are not there,
and I would appreciate it if you did the same. I looked at your site a
bit, and I am going to check it out some more, but there are some
organizational difficulties there and I have a hard time understanding
the point of some of the paragraphs there."

"There for example, I do not see many of the things you point out. The
aircraft, the roads, the quaries, the reserviors, the domes, etc."

"Many of the features you point out look just like other features, but
are called different things. The connection between the reservoirs
looks just like the features on the natural rock
formations. The monument looks just like 50 other blobs in the
picture. Cable crossing with passenger pod? I
don't see it."

"So, if you came here to talk to people in a rational manner, I would
cut out the snotty tone and the insulting words."


Hay Musashi, only warlord bush can still see those WMDs and, for that
little indiscretion, thousands of nice folks have bought the farm
because of it. I suppose that's perfectly OK by your anti "snotty
tone" standards of observation?

Now folks, I'm certainly not the one being the "all knowing" expert
here, just the goodwill messenger fore knowing that I still can't seem
to locate another SAR image of anything so naturally formed that looks
anything the least bit like a 2 km spanning bridge (otherwise lots of
artificial stuff), nor of those interconnected reservoirs or of any
collected community of structures, or of a rather significantly flat
and substaintil tarmac that's situated within a very mountainous plus
canyon ridge side location. Whereas my esteemed opposition seems to
have become the all knowing snott about everything being entirely
natural. Natural my ass, show me anything that's so natural and,
otherwise don't give me any of your "snotty tone" about any of it.

If you have any source of such geological images that come even
remotely close in size and/or spectrum, I'm interested to learn of
such because, the vast majority of terrain that's imaged at GUTH Venus
site No.1 is certainly entirely natural, hot rocks and all but, that
doesn't explain away the patterns of what's looking so artificially
created.


From: ocasey3
"Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the surface of Venus way too hot
to support these kinds of structures? What would they be made of?"

"Maybe the picture is a microscopic image and the structures were
built by intellegent anaerobic bacteria."


Just a few more of my dyslexic pages, along with numerous errors but,
I'm certainly wide open for not only correcting whatever but for
giving you the fullest of credits.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/heat-is-relative.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-numbers.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lizard-folk.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-air.htm

As you should know, heat is simply relative to pressure; the laws of
thermal dynamics and all, including those which involve biology. You
do realize that blood doesn't boil at such pressure, especially at the
elevated nighttime season of Venus.

As for microbes getting involved; if those complex structures were
created by any such capable microbe, then we've got ourselves a whole
lot more to worry about than of anything ET existing on Venus. Lizard
folk or not, big ass microbes with an attitude for surviving seriously
hot places is certainly a whole lot more troubling than merely
revengeful lizard folk Cathars.


From: freddo
"You're right - anything that wants to survive there is up against it:
enormous temperature and acid rain... Not my idea of a vacation spot!"

You really should know better than to stipulate "acid rain", as
there's no such thing. Haven't you heard; it's way too freaking damn
hot on Venus for there to be any rain and, without sufficient H2O (at
least nowhere near the surface), sulphur is an entirely harmless
crystal or powder but, otherwise quite useful. If you want acid rain,
for that substance you'll need a good rigid airship and, to go
nighttime fishing into those much cooler and lower elevation clouds,
where you'll have access to mega tonnes worth of pure H2O. Of course,
you need to apply the laws of physics for vacuum distilling out the
H2O portion, then perhaps doing a little something further in order to
convert it into H2O2 for safe keeping, as otherwise pure H2O will need
to be slightly pressurized and/or refrigerated. Once you've got the
H2O or that in the form of H2O2, there's several methods that'll
convert either substance into great volumes of just plain old H2 (on
demand if need be).


From: kucharek
"I'm sorry I can't really welcome Brad here. This guy is messing
around in some Usenet groups since ages with his claims only he can
see. It's impossible to change his opinion any bit. Any discussion or
argument with him his wasting time. You can imagine in which league
this guy plays..."

That's not true about "impossible to change his opinion any bit", as
I'll learn from others and, I'll even post credits as well as posting
links to whatever resources you've got that'll qualify such patterns
as for being created by natural causses. Geology and of the erosions
that contribute to creating nearly all that we see on Earth, as well
as for Mars, seems to be working just fine and dandy, so I have no
difficulty whatsoever, as I see all those common rock formations and
mountains, just as I clearly see the primary rille or channel/canyon
formation and erosions or tectonics and, I even clearl see those
secondary (newer) erosions associated with all sorts of most likely
natural causses such as the "fluid arch" consideration, unless of
course you've got another better idea and the supportive image of how
those sorts of items are not of natural formation, as in that case I
don't know what it is that you're driving at.


From: nebularain
"I remember a previous thread we had going discussing the possibility
of microscopic life in Venus' atmosphere, or something like that,
based off some article presenting the possibility. Many of us,
including myself, thought that would be interresting if true, but
there just needs to be more evidence for us to "believe" it. "

I do believe ESA's Venus Express will in fact deliver that evidence,
even though I've come to believe that life on the surface is a whole
lot more possible than not, especially when there's so freaking much
natural energy all about in order to do something for improving upon
the likelihood of survuiving a truly tough greenhouse environment.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/co2-windpower-03.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/energy-options.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-energy.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/positive.htm

At least unlike Mars, Venus surface radiation isn't a factor,
especially during their cooler season of nighttime. Speaking of
radiation; I've been building my knowledge upon such the hard way, on
the "need to know" basis of doing this without the help of others a
whole lot smarter than myself. The page is becoming another worth a
look-see and, I'm entirely open for corrections and/or better ideas
for shielding something like ISS for VL2.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm


From: sts60
"Well, Brad, I looked at your site. Sorry to say, but just like
HWSNBN, your conclusions seem rather heavily over-extrapolated from
the data. I've seen plenty of natural formations which look more
artificial than the features called out in your images."

Great words of wisdom; lets see those images. I'll not only learn from
them but, I'll post a direct link as well as give you all the credits.


"I liked your bit about how nasty Earth's environment would seem to
someone evolved in Venus'. However, I must confess I didn't understand
the reference to "Islamic lizards"."

I've recently changed my views upon the Islamic factor, as they could
be Muslim lizard folk or just nasty Cathar lizard folk. I'm thinking,
if any could survive, they'll likely have to be about a tough to kill
off as bin Laden or Saddam.

"By the way, if you are trying to convince people on this board of
your views, you might want to adopt a less superior tone, and avoid
labeling everyone who disagrees with you as some sort of NASA disinfo
agent or similar term. Or at least, since you likely have put me and
several others on this board in that category, offer some evidence to
back up such a claim. (Disagreeing with you is not evidence. No, I
don't work for NASA.)"


I'm only being difficult (returning the favor) when others are
counter-imposing by their views based upon nothing whatsoever, not
willing to fork over their images of such creative natural formations
that supposedly look so much like a rational community that's hosting
a tarmac, a substantial bridge, of multiple reservoirs, an airship and
otherwise all sorts of interesting structures as wellas infrastructure
that just so happen to be located at a fairly good elevation and
within a fairly rugged one at that.

I'd have to assume, if there's no documented reference material nor
laws of science and/or of physics backing up the opposition (geology
as well as biology I believe still functions within those factors),
that there must therefore be some ulterior motive at play, perhaps
even pagan worshiping going on. Such as those Apollo pictures taken on
the moon can't possibly be used in any court of law because, there's
still no original negatives or transparencies, not to mention that so
many of those images indicated nearly 50% reflective terrain as well
as for containing illumination "hot spots", plus none of the thousands
of such images never indicated any radiation fogging nor thermal
stress (how pathetically odd).

I certainly have no problem with anyone disagreeing, though most
pro-NASA souls seem quite willing to toss out a little flak by their
stipulating that those very artificial looking patterns are merely of
common hot rock, even though there's no other image being offered of
such creative hot rocks nor even of any creative frozen and radiated
to death Mars rocks, where I'd even be receptive to polluted Earth
rocks. This discovery is hardly as pathetic nor as pixel limited as
the Mars face, although the frozen Mars forest certainly looks
interesting.

Many of my supporters that are not entirely convinced, they haven't
been so rude as to insist that everything in the image is entirely
natural, as that would not only be foolish but, it'll obviously piss
me off to no end, unless of course they're offering something of merit
in order to back up their stance, as for that I'm willing to concede.

BTW; I'm not "superior", at least nowhere as superior as most Borg and
not to mention braille opponents, as I'm only the village idiot that
can still see without utilizing a Borg implant and, one that knows
damn well what something looks like if viewed from an airplane, even
though I simply can't put two and two together without making a few
too many mistakes while also having to flinch over those involved with
the Apollo sting/ruse that has bled over into the Magellan mapping of
Venus, now adversely affecting what's to be seen in at least some of
those Magellan images. Not to mention 9/11, there's Apollo bad blood
and subsequent bad DNA just about everywhere.

So, if as you say you're not a pro-NASA Borg and, if you're the least
bit capable of working a little outside the "nondisclosure" box, then
there's lots of most interesting things to be getting involved with.
The fact that you see something other than I do is certainly not to be
unexpected, as I've been taunted by many on just about every item and
subject, such as the following page is where I've tried to focus upon
the bridge consideration, as for being one of the least complicated of
issues to discuss. If it's not a constructed bridge; then what the
hell is it?
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-bridge.htm

end of my last badastronomy post that got through:

It seems those unable to budge from the "status quo" about Venus,
among several other issues, are exactly those very same Borgs
stipulating that we accomplished exactly how and what those having
"The Right Stuff" claim, where I'll just bet they also support
invasions and subsequent killings while looking for all those
invisible WMDs (BTW; only warlord Bush can see those, and I don't see
you criticizing his vision), as somehow entirely justified. Perhaps
that warm and fuzzy analogy needs to be inclusive of all the friendly
fire and friendly war games that have taken out numerous other
military as well as a good number of our own, plus far too many
civilians (at least a half century worth). So clearly as Mr. Kucharek
stipulated that "it's impossible to change his opinion any bit" more
than equally applies to those still deeply embedded within their
cold-war process of believing in whatever disinformation comes along,
especially if that's supporting their favorite pagan religion.

Those were not necessarily bad words or inferences focused upon honest
and moral individuals, as they wouldn't have been so arrogant and
otherwise disrespectful of what the truth has to offer. Therefore, if
you're the one taking any of this poorly, as though it's somehow my
fault that so many others screwed up, so much so that your perception
is that my finger has somehow ended up pointing at yourself, perhaps
there's a connection that I'm making that's justified. After all, I'm
certain you've got nothing but despicable things to say about the
likes of bin Laden, of Hitler, of Saddam and of a few others that
somehow qualify, or at least I hope they qualify, sufficiently in
order to be within your good book of bastards, as for being entirely
deserving of whatever flak goes their way.

What it boils down to; I have absolutely nothing respectful to say to
those involved in such cold-war adventures at the expense of humanity,
not to mention of those putting our morality into the nearest toilet.
This is where skewed history, skewed science and of skewed physics
simply isn't going to cut it, as the cat is nearly out of the bag,
otherwise the horse pucky is seriously hitting the fan. Whether or not
you like it; there's some kind of other life (NOT as we know it)
residing on Venus, or at the very least there's some rather
considerable pre-greenhouse remains just sitting there in plain sight,
and darn if I don't know where there's likely more to be found.

What we need are other good or even weird ideas as to what can be
seen, plus whatever the known laws of physics and of exobiology
extremes can contribute. Your contributions are worth a great deal,
even if they're found to be incorrect, whereas your flak is going to
be coming right back at you.

Not all that bad for just a village idiot, if I don't say so myself.

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS "GUTH Venus" http://guthvenus.tripod.com
and as an alternate: http://geocities.com/bradguth

Fred Garvin

unread,
Jul 26, 2003, 7:42:47 AM7/26/03
to
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:07:38 -0400, Brad Guth wrote:

> Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB Discuss
> Bad Astronomy here!
>
> That's sort of hard to do that if "You have been banned from this forum"
>
> Perhaps it had a little something to do with my space radiation page
> that's not exactly favorable for supporting those Apollo missions:
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm


You're STILL one wacky assclown!


--
What's the difference between a fish and a goat?
A fish likes to muck around the fountain......

FalconFly

unread,
Jul 26, 2003, 1:37:59 PM7/26/03
to
What makes me wonder :

If the remaining NewsGroup Users are such dumb, ignorant "Borgs", why bother wasting
precious NG Servers space by reposting the same stuff over and over ??

Feeling a bit lonely, lately.... ? :p

Webmaster
http://www.falconfly.de
3dfx Archive
====================
Forum : http://www.falconfly-central.de


Jay Windley

unread,
Jul 26, 2003, 7:35:54 PM7/26/03
to

"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d28ff28.03072...@posting.google.com...

|
| Perhaps it had a little something to do with my space radiation page
| that's not exactly favorable for supporting those Apollo missions:
| http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm

No. It has to do with your inability and/or unwillingness to discuss and
support same after having posted it, except with pseudo-intellectual
ramblings.

| Since the rest of you disbelievers are merely snookered
| Borgs, pawns in someone others game of death and death

... or perhaps experienced scientists and engineers with a good grasp of
fact and science.

| BTW; I'm not "superior", at least nowhere as superior as

| most Borg ...

Such a characteristic combination of faux modesty and disdain. And you
wonder why you were banned from Bad Astronomy. Name-calling doth not a
defense make.

| So, if as you say you're not a pro-NASA Borg ...

One can simply be pro-science and pro-fact. If that science and those facts
happen to agree with NASA, so be it. This isn't a matter of assumed
loyalties. It's simply a matter of fact.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

John Baker

unread,
Jul 27, 2003, 4:54:46 AM7/27/03
to

"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d28ff28.03072...@posting.google.com...

<snip typica Guth lunacy>

Yes, Brad, Venus is hot, all right. Far too hot for any kind of life to
exist.


Cardman

unread,
Jul 27, 2003, 8:59:22 AM7/27/03
to
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:54:46 GMT, "John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net>
wrote:

Actually it is quite cool high up in the atmosphere. Since there is
water vapor to be found there, then some flying things are an extreme
possibility.

I would not give it much thought myself, but that is what others are
happy to say.

Cardman.

Brad Guth

unread,
Jul 27, 2003, 3:20:24 PM7/27/03
to
"FalconFly" <falc...@ewetel.net> wrote in message news:<bfue9g$igmo4$1...@ID-75931.news.uni-berlin.de>...

It's not the same stuff. As unlike yourself, I keep learning, fixing
mistakes, giving credit wherever credit is due and, I sometimes simply
forget that I've asked the same question, or perhaps I'm hoping
there'll be new blood to work from, not against.

Somewhat like I'll be posting this one, as I'm still on the war-path
for learning Earth L4/L5 data.

Got anything?


*Other life on Venus, in spite of NASA, in spite of their Borg
collective*

In spite of the flak that's been generated and/or orchestrated as
opposition to the discovery of structures and thereby the most likely
existence of other life existing on Venus, as instead these
pro-everything-NASA jokers play around with their word games, Arthur
Andersen their numbers to death, along with their otherwise
sanctioning of whatever our administration(s) decides to do or not to
do, irregardless of whatever is skewing of history, skewing of science
and of somehow pretending those laws of physics do not apply to Venus,
but oddly apply entirely fine and dandy to Mars or any other planet
except Venus, not to mention their justifying factors of blatant
carnage, irregardless of the immoral implications and subsequent
affect upon the entire world, which recently came back around to 9/11
bite us in our own butts. Somehow to my opponents, all of that's OK
and worth the ultimate price so many have had to pay, yet of my
efforts towards honestly researching upon the rather obvious
possibilities that we've had planetary neighbors, and not only all
that but, that Venus has been entirely communications (laser packet)
accessible and/or even humanly obtainable by the standards of today,
at lest via VL2.

Yet it's still damn hot and nasty on Venus, Duh! so what?

The last time I looked, those complex structures, a rather substantial
tarmac, a likely suspension bridge, quarry sites, reservoirs and so on
hadn't melted away.

Just getting a raw understanding of what the space environment
actually is, say at Earth L4 or L5, is certainly going in the right
direction of obtaining valid knowledge towards understanding Venus L2
(VL2). Although, try as you may and, you'll not see those figures, at
least not clearly, as you'll most likely see only the likelihood of
incoming flak because guess what folks, the Earth L4/L5 environment is
essentially receiving the same solar influx as our fully illuminated
and irradiated to death moon, thoughof not having the secondary
radiation being contributed by the influx radiation interacting with
those lunar rocks and soil, which should be creating quite a bit
greater surface dosage (at least that's how it works on shuttle
missions, on ISS and for every other satellite ever launched),
certainly of no less radiation, unless you're deeply sheltered under
tonnes of said rock...
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-learned.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm

Give this one some thought and feedback, at the very least try to
learn of what Earth L4/L5 is all about, radiation wise, and let me
know.

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

Jay Windley

unread,
Jul 27, 2003, 3:35:09 PM7/27/03
to

"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d28ff28.03072...@posting.google.com...
| ... is

| essentially receiving the same solar influx as our fully illuminated
| and irradiated to death moon

For someone who doesn't know much about radiation, you seem to want to talk
an awful lot about it with implications of authority.

Brad Guth

unread,
Jul 27, 2003, 3:37:40 PM7/27/03
to
"Jay Windley" <webm...@clavius.org> wrote in message news:<bfv35v$9br$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com>...

> "Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5d28ff28.03072...@posting.google.com...
> |
> | Perhaps it had a little something to do with my space radiation page
> | that's not exactly favorable for supporting those Apollo missions:
> | http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm
>
> No. It has to do with your inability and/or unwillingness to discuss and
> support same after having posted it, except with pseudo-intellectual
> ramblings.

I can't sit here all day, sometimes I actually have to do other things
and, why should I address every incoming flak, only having to return
the warm and fuzzy favor.

>
> | Since the rest of you disbelievers are merely snookered
> | Borgs, pawns in someone others game of death and death
>
> ... or perhaps experienced scientists and engineers with a good grasp of
> fact and science.

If you're experienced, then simply infom me of what Earth L4 or L5 is
all about, such as how much solar influx and subsequent radiation???

>
> | BTW; I'm not "superior", at least nowhere as superior as
> | most Borg ...
>
> Such a characteristic combination of faux modesty and disdain. And you
> wonder why you were banned from Bad Astronomy. Name-calling doth not a
> defense make.

I'm having to learn on the "need to know basis" and, I really never
wanted to know about such things much outside of observational
discovery. Obviously that's not good enough for the like of other such
as yourself.

>
> | So, if as you say you're not a pro-NASA Borg ...
>
> One can simply be pro-science and pro-fact. If that science and those facts
> happen to agree with NASA, so be it. This isn't a matter of assumed
> loyalties. It's simply a matter of fact.

OK;

Fact, those rock or whatever lava patterns on Venus are not entirely
natural, at least not all of those within the GUTH Venus area.

Now, if you have some other idea as to how those items are different
than what I've suggested, that's fine and dandy as long as you don't
further insist that absolutely every facet of everything is of purely
natural formation because, if that bridge is a natural formation, then
by all means that item alone is the discovery of the century, not to
mention upon whatever other there is to speak of.

Brad Guth / IEIS

Brad Guth

unread,
Jul 27, 2003, 3:44:15 PM7/27/03
to
"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message news:<qrMUa.24309$ib2.7...@twister.neo.rr.com>...

I believe that's just a little too extreme, as that much pressure has
it's place in the laws of physics as well as within the recorded laws
of biology.

Perhaps you'll want to rephrase that to being; TOO HOT FOR OTHER LIFE
AS WE KNOW IT BUT, NOT NECESSARILY FOR OTHER LIFE NOT AS WE KNOW IT.

Have you ever heard of Darwin?

Brad Guth

unread,
Jul 27, 2003, 3:53:22 PM7/27/03
to
Cardman <car...@nospamcardman.co.uk> wrote in message news:<uti7ivkku64g8h6uo...@4ax.com>...

Thanks for your words of wisdom and, no flak.

Unlike my opponents, I'm hoping there'll be someone in exobiology
that'll take up the slack and, consider into what an evolved
exoskeletal sort of lizard folk might have managed in spite of our
human arrogance and sometimes utter stupidity.

ESA's Venus Express may soon be doing us all a seriously big favor, by
sampling into the upper atmosphere, which is quite a bit cooler at
nighttime and somewhat of lower elevation to boot (containing a higher
percentage of O2 at that).

Etok

unread,
Jul 27, 2003, 5:13:30 PM7/27/03
to

"Fred Garvin" <Gar...@Truss.net> wrote in message
news:cOtUa.3$hv2....@news.uswest.net...

> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:07:38 -0400, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB Discuss
> > Bad Astronomy here!
> >
> > That's sort of hard to do that if "You have been banned from this forum"
> >
> > Perhaps it had a little something to do with my space radiation page
> > that's not exactly favorable for supporting those Apollo missions:
> > http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm
>
>
> You're STILL one wacky assclown!
>

IMHO, he's a paranoid bipolar.

Probably feels pretty good most of the time.
He's getting what he wants from the usenet.

Etok

______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

Jay Windley

unread,
Jul 27, 2003, 8:08:23 PM7/27/03
to

"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d28ff28.0307...@posting.google.com...

|
| I can't sit here all day, sometimes I actually have to do other things
| and, why should I address every incoming flak, only having to return
| the warm and fuzzy favor.

You have time to write lengthy treatises composed mostly of speculative,
ignorant ramblings, and to post them to half a dozen newsgroups and
web-based forums. People who have time to write, but no time to listen have
a name: troll. That's why you were banned. Bad Astronomy has no tolerance
for trolls.

| If you're experienced, then simply infom me of what Earth L4 or L5 is
| all about, such as how much solar influx and subsequent radiation???

Please address the remarks I already gave.

| I'm having to learn on the "need to know basis" and, I really never
| wanted to know about such things much outside of observational
| discovery. Obviously that's not good enough for the like of other such
| as yourself.

No, it isn't. People who only learn as much as they think is necessary to
support their pre-existing viewpoints don't tend to be able to discuss much
of anything intelligently. This is especially galling when you tend to
respond to critics by calling them "pro-NASA Borgs". If you don't want to
learn about the topics that affect your public statements, that's your
business. But don't insult those of us who do.

| Fact, those rock or whatever lava patterns on Venus are not entirely
| natural, at least not all of those within the GUTH Venus area.

I don't care about your Venus theories, as I told you before. I'm
interested in your moon hoax theories.

Brad Guth

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 7:25:27 PM7/29/03
to
Excluding "any kind of life" seems like rather a large category,
covering far more than I would have thought necessary.

You do realize what a little technology may have to offer, being that
resources of energy certainly are not an issue and, if there was a
sufficient transition (say 4200 years worth or perhaps even 420
years), one might tend to believe that someone smart enough (obviously
that's excluding the likes of yourself) would have put two and two
together in order to have survived. I mean, what other choice would
you have to offer besides jumping ship.

That smartness doesn't have to represent being radio smart:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/radio-maybe.htm

In case you still can't figure out why I'm persisting; just maybe it's
because I keep getting such unexpected loads of flak and/or skewed
space exploration history justifying disinformation, instead of
alternative ideas and/or leads to what is hopefully more correct
information. When I seemingly get nothing but this sort of "status
quo" or flak in response to my suggesting a few positive
considerations and/or towards gathering further awareness into related
topics such as space radiation, or searching for the greater expertise
that I obviously do not have (nor should I be required to have), I
then go looking about to see what it is that I can learn on my own,
that's including the discovery of why there's been such opposition and
unexpected motivation and, lo and behold, it seems I keep finding
both, by learning overloads worth of new information as well as
gaining further insights into why all the orchestrated and/or Borg
like opposition.

Rigid airships for example; Even though you may not see nor realize
their potential on Venus, or even realize the rational basis for
having such applied technology, though perhaps you should just pretend
that I'm referring to another of those infamous WMD, where at least in
that way you'll simply have to accept the possibility that I'm right
and that you're not.

Given that airship science and of the applied engineering, as well as
the laws of physics are backing all this up, it's become rather
difficult for myself to understand why anyone would intentionally
impose their equally extreme "status quo" and/or "can't possibly do
any such thing because I and my fellow Borgs say so" views upon what's
otherwise entirely within-the-box possible, especially as far as that
which could have easily been developed pre-greenhouse.

When I'm referring to anything pre-greenhouse, I'm doing that not as
suggesting millions of years worth, more likely in terms of a few
thousand years. As I've stipulated before, a climate shift averaging
0.1°K per year is something well within the realm of possibilities of
surviving, that's including whatever expedited evolution could manage
to improve upon, as on Earth there's been recorded changes of much
greater shifts per year, thus clearly indicating the Venus transition
from being tropical at perhaps 300°K to becoming 720°K may well have
taken but 4200 years (not millions), where obviously a more rapid 1°K
shift per year would have become somewhat testy for accommodating that
same degree of survival within a timeline of merely 420 years but,
still something doable as long as you weren't wasting your time and
resources upon provoking others and then subsequently having to look
for invisible WMDs or of big ass airplanes flying into tall buildings.
Then, if you seriously expedited upon whatever improvements in
technology and applied such into the appropriate habitat construction
and of whatever good transportation methods (rigid airship in the case
of Venus), designed to tolerate the ever increasing heat and
subsequent depletion of surface water, as then you'd have a valid
means by which to migrate yourself to the next sunset community, so as
for utilizing the rather obvious advantage of remaining within the
season of night, plus having good access to whatever elevation, such
as Istar Terra representing a rather large territory of 10+km.

So far, I don't believe this rigid airship thing has intentionally
insulted anyone, other than those already having fears against any
sort of flying (such as Hindenburg phobia). I'm not suggesting one
damn thing that isn't possible and/or that isn't fully supported by
the known laws of physics. This is also not my stipulating that I've
become any airship expert, nor Venus atmospherics expert, nor any
chemical/conversion expert that will eventually become necessary in
order to best understand all there is to know about CO2-->CO/O2, or
even that of vacuum distilling water from those nighttime cloud
contents, as to obtaining H2O and then of the conversions into H2O2
and of producing massive volumes of H2 on demand.

What I've learned from others (again this may be excluding yourself)
is that all of this is not only quit possible but, in many instances
being in one manner or another accomplished on Earth as we speak. So,
what's all the flak over the likes of my rigid airship research?

If airship size is of any problem, then accomplish your own damn
estimating. If my thoughts on buoyancy are incorrect, again, do your
own thing. If the lifting gas utilized is not to be H2 or N2, then
again, do your own thing and then guess what, I'll post a link into
your research and, I'll certainly give you all the credits you've
earned. If in fact you're so freaking smart and above it all, then
otherwise what's keeping you from contributing to the cause?

Equally, if you can support that such highly unusual pixel patterns
are most likely natural, then that's fine and dandy as well. I simply
don't want to keep hearing those braille statements as quotes from
NASA's bible of what's already been published, unless that includes a
sufficient definition of exactly how such artificial looking patters
could have formulated by natural events and, that explanation should
be offered along with some other image example so as to reinforce what
it is you're stating. Since I already know what a big rock looks like
and generally how that rock came about, perhaps you ott to focus upon
those pixel patterns and try to match those patterns up with anything
you've got, as that I'll accept.

Just because Venus is humanly too damn hot and nasty, that by itself
doesn't rule out other life NOT as we know it, nor rigid airships,
especially of those operating from good altitude to start off with
and, of their operating within a nighttime season is something well
within the known limits of Earthly materials and technology. Good
grief folks, if a village idiot can figure this one out, then why are
all the collective Borgs of Club NASA so unable to function?

The rigid airship issue isn't even outside the box, nor are most any
of the other issues I've brought onto the Venus table, with the
exclusion of moving ISS off to see the wizard of Oz at Venus L2, as
that's way outside the box. In addition, my reverse engineering and
subsequent math mistakes could certainly be a ways off but, not all of
the ideas are wrong for explaining what's to be seen, nor are the
intentions of where all this is leading us in any way skewed by hidden
agendas.

If it's otherwise acceptable to even consider a manned expedition to
frozen and irradiated to death Mars, where your existence is only by
way of being heavily technology subsidized within a near vacuum as
being acceptable (including the human space travel risk plus the
hundreds of billions necessary to pull that off), as well as for being
where there's so damn little natural energy to be had, then surely the
alternative prospects of considering others evolved into becoming
accustomed to life in a frying pan had ott to be worth something,
especially when there's so much accessible natural energy just about
anywhere you care to look and, there's no significant cosmic radiation
to worry about, especially nighttime, so that you don't have to live
under a rock as would be necessary for Mars, where even the Mars
nighttime galactic radiation is a known health risk.

If this positive outlook upon Venus is considered as acting superior,
then those offended must be really stupid folks, further compounded by
their own arrogance and perhaps even a little lack of morality. As
otherwise, what's there to lose, since I'm not even involving the
possibility of roasting another batch of astronauts and, of
interplanetary communications is not even rocket science, not hardly
even astronomy, and besides, since I thought astronomy was mostly
about observations and since they've more than proven to this village
idiot that the majority of them can't hardly see a damn thing that
isn't their idea (it's actually pretty darn hard to see much of
anything when you're too busy eating your own kind over what's left of
government grants and subsidies and, understandably you can't even
hear what anyone is trying to say over the vortex roar of suction
noise created by all the NASA suck-ups doing absolutely anything to
appease, impress and/or shield their pagan god).

Yes Santa, NASA as well as NSA/DoD have been very, very bad, at the
heart of all this Venus avoidance and more so of avoiding anything
GUTH Venus, for damn good reason(s), such as their butts are on the
line big-time, including those cloned and even of the new guard are at
risk if I'm only 10% right. It's that damn simple, as otherwise
obtaining further information and/or support wouldn't have become so
hot and nasty. Thus, if you send me your warm and fuzzy flak, I'll
reheat it and send it right back at you (tit for tat and then some).

FalconFly

unread,
Jul 30, 2003, 6:26:54 AM7/30/03
to
> It's not the same stuff. As unlike yourself, I keep learning, fixing
> mistakes, giving credit wherever credit is due and, I sometimes simply
> forget that I've asked the same question, or perhaps I'm hoping
> there'll be new blood to work from, not against.

Well, as unlike yourself, I recognize when I am definitely on the wrong track.

And unlike yourself, I do not make the same error twice
(not to mention still keeping at it hundreds of times, after being proven wrong over and
over).

Farewell...
Make yourself comfortable in the Killfile.

*plonk*

No greetings for notorious NG Spammers today
FalconFly

Brad Guth

unread,
Jul 30, 2003, 6:07:02 PM7/30/03
to
L4/L5 are in fact radiation hot spots, just like the moon

This is about semantics as much as it's about our understanding L4/L5
radiation.

Basically, we're having to deal with secondary (X-Ray) radiation, as
obviously you need to be sufficiently shielded against any typically
sudden solar output, often referred to as a solar maximum event, even
though there's any number of definitions for what constitutes "solar
maximum" as well as for what's subsequently determined as for being
classified as solar minimum.

For my understanding of what shielding density does for abating
secondary radiation, I've created another reference URL page update
that's going to be revised as I learn more truths. For now I'm working
from the NASA new guard charts provided within the con_x_dose1.pdf
file, as well as reflecting upon what the likes of others such as Jay
Windley and Henry Spencer are having to say.

Here's an excerpt from the page:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm
================================================================================

As compared to Earth L2, L4/L5 are certainly radiation hot spots,
except for the fact that the lunar surface facilitates one better by
creating secondary radiation, as in X-Rays.

Now then, as for speaking of dosage reduction as a ratio of density;
L2 at 1 g/cm2 = 2.46^3 rem/year, whereas all things being equal at 10
g/cm2 = 91.8 rem/year. Unless my math is incorrect (always a
possibility), that's roughly a 27:1 improvement created by a 10 fold
increase in mass. Actually it's not linear but exponentially greater
as you further increase upon density, where as the next ten fold might
appear to represent a 50+ fold improvement and of the subsequent next
ten fold increase in mass could very well represent a 100 fold
reduction (at this point we're only dealing with secondary radiation
issues), so that's certainly not the 27 X 27 but more likely a factor
50 X 100 or 5000:1 reduction in those nasty secondary x-rays in going
from 10 g/cm2 to 1024 g/cm2.

Reductions of mostly secondary radiation (according to
con_x_dose1.pdf)
0.1 to 1 g/cm2 = 13:1
1.0 to 10 g/cm2 = 27:1
10 to 100 g/cm2 = 50:1
100 to 1024 g/cm2 = 100:1

Obviously the last two categories represent my own village idiot
estimate, though based upon the previous two density shifts.

If 10 fold in mass from 1 g/cm2 to 10 g/cm2 affects a 27 fold
radiation reduction, then I was at first thinking that perhaps another
10 fold mass had ott to represent at the very least a 729 fold
reduction, though perhaps more then likely since this chart is clearly
going exponentially nonlinear (as the con_x_dose1.pdf clearly
indicates), whereas another 10 fold increase had ott to easily exceed
27 X 50 or how about at the very least 1024:1, while a 100 fold might
thereby represent 50 X 100 or how about attributing at least 4096:1
worth in reductions of those secondary radiations noted at 10 g/cm2.

Whom is kidding whom; any way you care to cut it, there's a good deal
of solar/cosmic radiation at L4/L5, as equally more so while being
situated on the moon, specifically because of those secondary X-Rays
created from all that clumping soil and rocks which do not exist at
L4/L5. This one has become another Duh! A significant correction in at
least my misunderstanding that's become a whole lot more clear and
believable than NASA's Apollo bible.

===============================================================================

Unlike Jay Windly and Henry Spencer, I'm not always right, though why
then should these two "all knowing" individuals be essentially
contradicting each other and/or why should they be opposing other life
NOT as we know it and/or other intelligence NOT as we know it. You'd
think if Earth were getting itself hotter by the year, say 1°K/year,
and you had all the essential resources and loads of natural energy
all about, seems rather pointless to think otherwise that at least
some of us would stop fighting with one another, long enough to make
whatever improvements and/or adaptations happen. Obviously the likes
of Jay and Henry totally disagree with that assessment, as they'd
rather remain on the hunt for those invisible WMDs, carnage and all,
or simply wagging another dog to death in favor of their pagan
religion.

Come to think of it, I should have been posting this under "Animal
Rights".

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com

Jay Windley

unread,
Jul 30, 2003, 6:20:45 PM7/30/03
to

"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d28ff28.03073...@posting.google.com...

|
| Unlike Jay Windly and Henry Spencer, I'm not always right

Is there some reason you need to be condescending?

| though why then should these two "all knowing" individuals
| be essentially contradicting each other and/or why should
| they be opposing other life NOT as we know it and/or other
| intelligence NOT as we know it.

You're *way* off base, Guth. I have no idea what you're talking about with
respect to "life not as we know it". I have only responded to your
statements alleging that the Apollo missions did not succeed as advertised.
That's all I'm interested in and that's all I've responded to. You seem to
want to drag me into your whole fantasy world, but I'm not accepting that
invitation.

| Obviously the likes of Jay and Henry totally disagree with
| that assessment, as they'd rather remain on the hunt for those
| invisible WMDs, carnage and all, or simply wagging another dog
| to death in favor of their pagan religion.

Again, you're *way* off base. Nothing I've said to you has anything to do
with any of these topics.

You seem quite willing to put words in my mouth and attach my name to
whatever idea boils up from your addled brain. I'm trying desperately to
keep you on a small handful of topics upon which I can profess some degree
of education, knowledge, and experience. You seem to want to attack every
topic except the ones upon which I have engaged you.

Can you perhaps dispense with the pseudo-political rhetoric and the
name-calling, and engage in a suitably concise, on-topic discussion about
the questions I've raised?

Rand Simberg

unread,
Jul 30, 2003, 6:33:29 PM7/30/03
to
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:20:45 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Jay
Windley" <webm...@clavius.org> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

>Can you perhaps dispense with the pseudo-political rhetoric and the
>name-calling, and engage in a suitably concise, on-topic discussion about
>the questions I've raised?

Jay why do you argue with netloons and trolls?

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: postm...@fbi.gov

Jim Davis

unread,
Jul 30, 2003, 7:23:20 PM7/30/03
to
Rand Simberg wrote:

>>Can you perhaps dispense with the pseudo-political rhetoric and
>>the name-calling, and engage in a suitably concise, on-topic
>>discussion about the questions I've raised?
>
> Jay why do you argue with netloons and trolls?

I don't know, but I'm grateful he's taking the time. Brad may not be
learning anything, but I am. Photography is not a subject I have any
expertise in and I find Jay's comments very illuminating.

Jim Davis

Jay Windley

unread,
Jul 30, 2003, 7:37:25 PM7/30/03
to

"Jim Davis" <jimd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns93C8BB16DE1EAji...@130.133.1.4...

That's why. Consider that the person to whom I address my remarks is not
necessarily the person who will get the most benefit from reading them.

DrPostman

unread,
Jul 31, 2003, 12:06:19 AM7/31/03
to
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:20:45 -0600, "Jay Windley"
<webm...@clavius.org> wrote:


>Can you perhaps dispense with the pseudo-political rhetoric and the
>name-calling, and engage in a suitably concise, on-topic discussion about
>the questions I've raised?


He's following the Woo Woo Credo.
http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html

That's all kooks know to do.

--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: eckles(at)midsouth.rr.com

"The services provided by Sylvia Browne Corporation are highly
speculative in nature and we do not guarantee that the results
of our work will be satisfactory to a client."
-Sylvia's Refund Policy

The Bad Astronomer

unread,
Jul 31, 2003, 7:27:17 PM7/31/03
to

Brad Guth wrote:

> Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB
> Discuss Bad Astronomy here!
>
> That's sort of hard to do that if "You have been banned from this
> forum"

You know, I usually agonize over banning someone, taking the time to weigh
the reasons and make sure I am making the correct decision.

However, reading your posts here makes me wonder why I didn't ban you
sooner. You are a known troll, you've been one for years, and I do tend to
ban people who thump their stumps with no inclination whatsoever to
actually listen to what people are saying to them. The forum on my site is
for the open exchange of information, not for pseudoscientific trolls to
yell so loudly they cannot hear anything but their own voice.

Brad Guth

unread,
Aug 4, 2003, 9:09:32 PM8/4/03
to
You're absolutely right on, the truth stinks. I'm just glad I'm the
one that's up-wind of it all.

All that the "Bad Astronomer" needs to do, is provide your own
superior numbers and/or offer a web page that I can post a link into
(NASA moderated pictures of a clumping lunar surface that's reflecting
at nearly 50% isn't going to cut it, neither are those terrific still
photos of any frail test flight that's not likely as stable nor as
reliable as the V-22 Osprey, which can't fly either yet we've got
quality stills of it hovering before any crash and even a few movie
minutes before it crached while killing everyone onboard, even the
latest strike force vertical jet aircraft is unstable at best, that's
after throwing every possible level of modern fly-by-wire technology
that operating from a bloody cash of nearly CRAY computers that can't
miss a single bit out of millions of bits worth of instruction code
that we've got invested in the damn thing, which BTW we didn't have
back then) so, offer whatever it is that others and myself can compare
of whatever it is that you have to stipulate as opposed to my
uneducated arguments. In the mean time, I'll continue to read of what
others have to say and, I'll even do my best to understand it, even
though you seem to have far more ulterior motives at risk than you or
I can shake a flaming stick at.

In spite of others such as your pretentious club contributing squat
worth of specifics, certainly nothing but infomercials on behalf of
Club NASA, I believe I'm getting somewhat closer to understanding the
harsh environment of Earth L4 or L5, thereby I'm slowly gaining ground
upon what Venus L2 may have to offer, so that the following updated
page is becoming both "good news" and "bad news".

Here's my latest update and, as far as this village idiot can figure,
it's become somewhat worse off than I thought, at least the Van Allen
zone as representing any significant radiation buffer for Earth simply
isn't what the pro-Apollo cults have to say, even though it's a fairly
nasty place to spend any amount of time in a craft as piss-poorly
shielded as what the Apollo missions had to work with and, don't even
mention anything of TRW Space Data, as that's 27 times worse off.

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm

There's been another metric tonne worth of new information that I've
learned about the radiation environment at Earth L4/L5, not to mention
the greater risk imposed from secondary (X-Ray) dosage that's
attributed to solar minimum cosmic radiation interacting with the
likes of any shield and/or the lunar surface.

This is where the opposition (perhaps that's you) offers somewhat
intentional disinformation, as being tossed out like so much warm and
fuzzy flak at my position, where actually that's what's been giving me
insight and further motivation into learning what's more likely the
case than not, like what our atmosphere and of the void or space in
between Earth's atmosphere and 590 km has to offer, a factor of
roughly 274,000:1 in reducing radiation exposure as opposed to the Van
Allen zone attributing another mere 200:1 influx buffer.

For some odd reason(s), I was previously under the impression or
allusion, as kindly provided by all the pro-NASA as well as pro-Apollo
camps, that our Van Allen belts or zones were of the major benefit to
our survival, responsible for creating the bulk of Earth's shield,
achieving our current level of exposure and, if in fact the Van Allen
imposes a mere 200:1 benefit, that's certainly worth the effort, as
I'll take 1 mrem/day as opposed to 200 mrem/day any day of the week,
month or year, not to mention a lifetime that wouldn't be all that
long if we couldn't adapt/evolve into managing with such dosage.
Although, that also represents of what's existing beyond the Van Allen
zone of death is in fact considerably more irradiated hot and nasty
then we've been told, especially the likes of L4/L5 and of the moon
itself.

BTW; The moon landings are not any hoax, they just weren't manned,
because if they were there'd be a whole lot more radiation fogging of
film (especially of that thermally roasted and then subfrozen Kodak
film) and of measurably but survivable TBI dosage applied to those
otherwise radiation proof astronauts and, there'd also have been a
lunar SAR/VLA aperture receiving station (robotic) up and running as
of decades ago;
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm

Regards, Brad Guth "GUTH Venus"

Jay Windley

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 1:58:22 AM8/5/03
to

"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d28ff28.03080...@posting.google.com...

|
| All that the "Bad Astronomer" needs to do, is provide your own
| superior numbers and/or offer a web page

Try www.badastronomy.com

Oh, wait. You were banned there for being a troll.

Brad Guth

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 4:24:57 PM8/5/03
to
Instead of your critiquing for the purely unadulterated sake of your
always be right criteria, just try for once to suppose someone other
needed your ideas along with a little further information or
consideration on the "what if" aspects of a relatively tiny percentage
of a certain location on Venus that's otherwise loaded with purely
natural formations as surrounding what is otherwise far more likely
artificial than not, be these of patterns entirely unusual and
otherwise entirely unrecorded as of existing anywhere other as being
so natural (including Earth).

In which case, how would you and of your superior intellect undertake
to share your ideas and to review upon the options at hand, the Darwin
double-twist at hand, the entirely unexpected surprise that's become
way more than apparent, or how about just pondering the extremely
remote possibility that you really don't know absolutely everything
there is to know about the following;

1) Other life need not be human like

2) Other life need not require nearly as much O2

3) Other life need not be as pathetically stupid as humans

4) There's actually all the O2 you could possibly want (CO2-->CO/O2)

5) There actually all the H2O you could want, if you had a rigid
airship

6) Available energy is abundant, as natural and as green as you can
imagine

7) Notable structures and community infrastructure is not anything so
natural

8) If something is not natural, then what other explanation is there
but life?

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/positive.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-air.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-learned.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-bridge.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/significant-life.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-nocturnals.htm

There's a few dozen other papers that'll probably rub you the wrong
way if you're inclined to remain in staunch opposition to other life
NOT as we know of, or other intelligence NOT as we know of, or even
the pretext that's I'm just a little bit more right about the
observationology of what's existing on Venus in spite of it being so
hot and nasty, in spite of all the status quo god-like communities of
astronomy, astrophysics and even of astro/exobiology purest that can't
foresee any other habitat that's not capable of sustaining our humanly
existence, at our pathetic level of intelligence, not to mention
vastly superior arrogance to whatever ET there is.

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS discovery of LIFE on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com

Jay Windley

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 4:47:55 PM8/5/03
to

"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d28ff28.03080...@posting.google.com...
|
| Instead of your critiquing for the purely unadulterated sake of your
| always be right criteria ...

I don't criticize your posts because I'm insufferably right. I criticize
your posts because they're insufferably wrong. Your self-deprecations
notwithstanding, you seem utterly alien to the concept that you, yourself,
might be so utterly wrong that we simply don't don't where to begin to tell
you how to improve.

| just try for once to suppose someone other needed your

| ideas ...

Lots of people need my ideas. They sit calmly and listen to them, ask me
questions about them, and then ultimately pay me for them. You obviously
don't need any of my ideas because you've thrown most of them out.

| ...of a certain location on Venus

Sorry, not interested in Venus. I can't vouch for whether my intellect is
"superior" or not, but right now it's telling me that your ideas on Venus
shouldn't be touched with a ten-foot contact probe.

If, on the other hand, you'd be willing to substantiate any of the
outlandish claims you've made regarding the Apollo moon landings, I'll speak
to those.

Herb Schaltegger

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 4:43:29 PM8/5/03
to
In article <5d28ff28.03080...@posting.google.com>,
brad...@yahoo.com (Brad Guth) wrote:

> Instead of your critiquing for the purely unadulterated sake of your
> always be right criteria, just try for once to suppose someone other
> needed your ideas along with a little further information or
> consideration on the "what if" aspects of a relatively tiny percentage
> of a certain location on Venus that's otherwise loaded with purely
> natural formations as surrounding what is otherwise far more likely
> artificial than not, be these of patterns entirely unusual and
> otherwise entirely unrecorded as of existing anywhere other as being
> so natural (including Earth).

Try writing fewer run-on, content-free sentences. Better yet, just stop
spewing your insanity. Really, check your medication dosages. They are
clearly too low.

--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks

Brad Guth

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 11:46:52 PM8/5/03
to
"Jay Windley" <webm...@clavius.org> wrote in message news:<bgp52s$vgq$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com>...

I really have extremely little interest in anything Apollo, as I can't
seem to pull much value from hardly any of it, although you should
have been all over the moon-sar/vla thing, as that's entirely robotic
and, it's well within our existing technology.

I am still trying to ascertain the Earth L4/L5 environment, even if
it's nothing as radiation cool as the Apollo moon, as at least that
way I'd have some idea as to what Venus L2 could turn out being.

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm

Jay Windley

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 1:18:26 AM8/6/03
to

"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d28ff28.03080...@posting.google.com...
|
| I really have extremely little interest in anything Apollo

Then why do you keep saying it was faked, and talking about supposedly
non-existent 1/6-gravity trainers and "Van Allen zones of death"? You
couldn't shut up about it until someone came along who knew what he was
talking about, and now all of a sudden you say it's no big deal.

Put up or shut up.

| although you should have been all over the moon-sar/vla
| thing

Why? I don't chase after *every* loony idea that comes my way.

| .. as radiation cool as the Apollo moon

... which, of course, you have little interest in.

sts060

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 4:55:17 PM8/6/03
to
brad...@yahoo.com (Brad Guth) wrote in message news:<5d28ff28.03080...@posting.google.com>...
<snip>

> All that the "Bad Astronomer" needs to do, is provide your own
> superior numbers and/or offer a web page that I can post a link into
> (NASA moderated pictures of a clumping lunar surface that's reflecting
> at nearly 50% isn't going to cut it, neither are those terrific still
> photos of any frail test flight that's not likely as stable nor as
> reliable as the V-22 Osprey, which can't fly either yet we've got
> quality stills of it hovering before any crash and even a few movie
> minutes before it crached while killing everyone onboard, even the
> latest strike force vertical jet aircraft is unstable at best, that's
> after throwing every possible level of modern fly-by-wire technology
> that operating from a bloody cash of nearly CRAY computers that can't
> miss a single bit out of millions of bits worth of instruction code
> that we've got invested in the damn thing, which BTW we didn't have
> back then)
<snip>

Is this part related to your claim that the Apollo landings did not
take place? If so, does it have something to do with claims that the
LEM wouldn't work?

Anway, the V-22 actually does fly; it has been tested in all of its
flight modes, has landed/taken off from ships at sea, etc. There have
been a number of fixes both technical and operational to address the
problems which led to two (IIRC) fatal crashes.

As for "strike force" VTOL jets, the Harrier has been flying for a
*long* time, and the STOVL F-35 seems to perform quite well. The
Harrier never used much in the way of processing power.

If you are linking VTOL aircraft to VTOL spacecraft, specifically the
LEM, they are significantly different control regimes. Nevertheless,
both have been demonstrated to work quite well. I've already
mentioned relevant aircraft. In the spacecraft realm, there are the
Soviet lunar sample return missions, the LEM itself, and the DC-X
(which flew quite well; its loss was due to failure of a landing gear
leg to extend).

None of this is related to your imaginative Venus claims, but you
brought the VTOL subject up, so...

Ami A. Silberman

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 5:00:17 PM8/6/03
to
sts060 wrote:
>
> Is this part related to your claim that the Apollo landings did not
> take place? If so, does it have something to do with claims that the
> LEM wouldn't work?
>
> Anway, the V-22 actually does fly; it has been tested in all of its
> flight modes, has landed/taken off from ships at sea, etc. There have
> been a number of fixes both technical and operational to address the
> problems which led to two (IIRC) fatal crashes.
>
> As for "strike force" VTOL jets, the Harrier has been flying for a
> *long* time, and the STOVL F-35 seems to perform quite well. The
> Harrier never used much in the way of processing power.
>
> If you are linking VTOL aircraft to VTOL spacecraft, specifically the
> LEM, they are significantly different control regimes. Nevertheless,
> both have been demonstrated to work quite well. I've already
> mentioned relevant aircraft. In the spacecraft realm, there are the
> Soviet lunar sample return missions, the LEM itself, and the DC-X
> (which flew quite well; its loss was due to failure of a landing gear
> leg to extend).
>
> None of this is related to your imaginative Venus claims, but you
> brought the VTOL subject up, so...

Yup, as I pointed out, if the LM crashed at ten times the rate that
Osprey did (per hour of powered flight), we would have an expected value
of 1/10 of a crashed LM.

Jay Windley

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 5:57:12 PM8/6/03
to

"sts060" <sts...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:89ab5c0b.03080...@posting.google.com...

|
| Anway, the V-22 actually does fly; it has been tested in all of its
| flight modes, has landed/taken off from ships at sea, etc.

It's important to realize the vast qualitative differences between an
aircraft such as the V-22 and a vehicle such as the Apollo lunar module.
The latter was never intended to be more than an experimental craft. The
Osprey, on the other hand, is expected to be made in droves, flown by pilots
of average skill (by military standards), and maintained according to
straightforward procedures by relatively inexpert people.

This is not to diminish the skill of military pilots and technicians. Far
from it. The point is simply that the LM could be serviced literally by
only a handful of people in the world. It was easier to build, in many
ways, than the V-22 because it didn't have to be built so that it was cheap
and easy to make in large quantities, or so that it had parts that could be
easily exchanged under battlefield conditions.

The V-22 has to fulfill a military role. That involves certain standards of
reliability and tolerance of hostile conditions. True, the LM had to
guarantee a certain degree of reliability too, but the means of getting
there was different. The V-22 strives to find a single means of
construction and operation that results in reliable service. That process
requires a long period of testing and refinement. The LM team addressed
that problem using a high degree of flexibility in the design. This
provided a highly fault-tolerant design, but one which required considerable
ongoing support from the original design team. One cannot easily appreciate
the power of that design after the fact.

| The Harrier never used much in the way of processing power.

The problem of flight stability is vastly overstated in the conspiracist
literature. I note that none of the principal authors of these works seems
to be a pilot, or to have any notable experience in designing and building
flying machines. It seems that their opinions suffer greatly from those
deficiencies.

| None of this is related to your imaginative Venus claims, but you
| brought the VTOL subject up, so...

Contrary to Brad's protests, I am simply responding to subjects he himself
has raised. If they are not important to his other theories, then he should
have no ideological problem in conceding that he is wrong about them.

Fred Garvin

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 9:18:05 PM8/6/03
to
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 01:18:26 -0400, Jay Windley wrote:


> "Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5d28ff28.03080...@posting.google.com... | | I really have
> extremely little interest in anything Apollo
>
> Then why do you keep saying it was faked, and talking about supposedly
> non-existent 1/6-gravity trainers and "Van Allen zones of death"? You
> couldn't shut up about it until someone came along who knew what he was
> talking about, and now all of a sudden you say it's no big deal.
>
> Put up or shut up.
>
> | although you should have been all over the moon-sar/vla | thing
>
> Why? I don't chase after *every* loony idea that comes my way.
>
> | .. as radiation cool as the Apollo moon
>
> ... which, of course, you have little interest in.
>


He needs to put down the crack pipe....

Ami A. Silberman

unread,
Aug 7, 2003, 9:32:14 AM8/7/03
to
Jay Windley wrote:
>
> The problem of flight stability is vastly overstated in the conspiracist
> literature.

And sometimes (like Brad), they blow hot and cold. You can't argue that
there were no landings because the LM wasn't stable, and then follow it
up with there were landings but they were unmanned.

Jay Windley

unread,
Aug 7, 2003, 10:58:13 AM8/7/03
to

"Ami A. Silberman" <sil...@mitre.org> wrote in message
news:3F3254DE...@mitre.org...

|
| You can't argue that there were no landings because the LM
| wasn't stable, and then follow it up with there were landings
| but they were unmanned.

Yes, that degree of contradiction is rampant in conspiracist writings. It's
because conspiracy theories provide only ad hoc explanations for individual
snippets of observation, which they then try to stitch together into a
coherent theory. It's only a matter of time before all those little ad hoc
speculations result in contradiction.

The glaring contradiction of the moon hoax theory is the notion that it was
done to show our superiority over the Russians, and that the Russians were
in on it.

Brad Guth

unread,
Aug 10, 2003, 4:01:18 PM8/10/03
to
"Ami A. Silberman" <sil...@mitre.org> wrote in message news:<3F3254DE...@mitre.org>...


Yes I can, as I never stipulated those weren't crash landings,
somewhat like we have to do today with just about anything we send off
to Mars, even though Mars offers a wee bit of atmosphere that should
give options, though the crash and bounce until everything comes to a
halt seems to be the best we can accomplish.

DrPostman

unread,
Aug 10, 2003, 4:49:48 PM8/10/03
to


You incredible idiot, do you have a better method than using airbags,
which has so far been the most successful way of landing on Mars?

Greg D. Moore (Strider)

unread,
Aug 10, 2003, 6:29:20 PM8/10/03
to

"DrPostman" <Lo...@mysig.foremail> wrote in message
news:mqbdjv43gd0tn3q95...@4ax.com...

>
>
> You incredible idiot, do you have a better method than using airbags,
> which has so far been the most successful way of landing on Mars?

Really? One success is more successful than two rocket/parachute landings?

Nice to know.

DrPostman

unread,
Aug 10, 2003, 9:29:43 PM8/10/03
to


From what I have heard it seems to be the favorite way of looking at
landing. Perhaps not the most prevalent, but one of the favorites.

sts060

unread,
Aug 11, 2003, 12:30:28 PM8/11/03
to
brad...@yahoo.com (Brad Guth) wrote in message news:<5d28ff28.03081...@posting.google.com>...

> "Ami A. Silberman" <sil...@mitre.org> wrote in message news:<3F3254DE...@mitre.org>...
> > Jay Windley wrote:
> > >
> > > The problem of flight stability is vastly overstated in the conspiracist
> > > literature.
> >
> > And sometimes (like Brad), they blow hot and cold. You can't argue that
> > there were no landings because the LM wasn't stable, and then follow it
> > up with there were landings but they were unmanned.
>
>
> Yes I can, as I never stipulated those weren't crash landings,

So you're saying we haven't landed on the Moon, just crashed on it?
If so, that is incorrect - see below. If that's not what you meant,
please clarify.

> somewhat like we have to do today with just about anything we send off
> to Mars, even though Mars offers a wee bit of atmosphere that should
> give options, though the crash and bounce until everything comes to a
> halt seems to be the best we can accomplish.

Factually incorrect. We have accomplished one airbag landing of a
space probe. We have landed numerous probes in the conventional way
with rockets (sometimes combined with parachutes). For example:

-> Venus - Venera 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14; Vega 2
-> Moon - Luna 9, 13, 16*, 17, 20*, 21, 24*; Surveyor 1, 3, 5, 6, 7;
Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17
-> Mars - Viking 1, 2
* - sample return successful

There have been numerous failures, but they have been due to a wide
range of reasons. The fact is that to date we have about two dozen
successful unmanned soft landings and one airbag landing. Airbag
landings are a clever solution, and seem to work quite well in our
limited experience, but the vast bulk of landings on other celestial
bodies have been made by rocket soft landers. Anyway, the single
airbag success to date is irrelevant to your apparent premise that
successful Lunar landings did not take place.

BTW, Vega 1 and 2 both release balloons which successfully floated
around over Venus for a short time. Thought you would like that,
given your talk of airships on Venus...

Jeff Root

unread,
Aug 13, 2003, 1:25:57 PM8/13/03
to
"DrPostman" replied to a couple of other guys:


>>> You incredible idiot, do you have a better method than using
>>> airbags, which has so far been the most successful way of
>>> landing on Mars?
>>
>> Really? One success is more successful than two rocket/parachute
>> landings?
>
> From what I have heard it seems to be the favorite way of looking at
> landing. Perhaps not the most prevalent, but one of the favorites.

To state it explicitly, the two Viking landers successfully
landed on Mars using parachutes and rockets for final descent.
Mars Pathfinder used parachutes, rockets, and airbags. Testing
that landing method was the *primary* purpose of the mission.
Info about the Entry, descent, and landing:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/mpf/edl/edl1.html

I'm surprised to see that the rocket motors were mounted near
the outside edge of the aeroshell:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/mpf/rad.html

Of course, that's the only place they could fit, but it means
they had to fire exactly simultaneously, and all at the same
thrust, or the spacecraft would have done something like this:

http://www.freemars.org/jeff2/nosedive.png

The reason for the airbags was to save the weight and expense
of landing rockets. However, rockets turned out to be required
anyway, to get the landing speed low enough, so they probably
didn't save any money, and certainly didn't save any weight.

So I was surprised to learn that the Mars Exploration Rovers
will also use airbags. They, too, will first use parachutes
and rockets to slow their descent.

Noteably, although Beagle 2 will use a parachute and airbags,
it will not use landing rockets. Their website is rather thin
on substance. See the page on EDLS:

http://www.beagle2.com/technology/index.htm

The Beagle 2 parachute manufacturer:

http://www.analyticon.co.uk/beagle_case_study.htm

Some other past successes and partial failures of the Martian
Defense Forces:

The first four USSR Mars probes were not landers. The first
three failed during launch. The fourth, Mars 1, which was the
first to be publicly announced, was lost when the attitude
control system failed during or after mid-course correction.
(Only one mid-course correction was possible.)

The fifth Mars probe, called Zond 2, was a lander. One of its
two solar panels failed just after launch, and contact was lost
on the way to Mars. If it had reached Mars, it would have
crashed at supersonic speed, because it was not yet known at
the time it was built and launched that Mars' atmosphere is so
thin. This fact was discovered during the flight by the US
probe Mariner 4. The parachute on Zond 2 was designed for a
much denser atmosphere, and it had no landing rockets.

The next probe, intended to beat Mariner 9 to Mars, failed to
leave Earth orbit because the timer which should have ignited
the upper stage after 1.5 hours had instead accidentally been
set to 1.5 years. (!!!)

The next two probes, Mars 2 and Mars 3, were orbiter/lander
combinations, like the later US Viking spacecraft, but unlike
Viking, the landers went directly to the surface without first
going into orbit. This was fatal for both landers because they
unfortunately arrived in the middle of the worst global dust
storm ever seen. Contact with the Mars 2 lander was lost at
the time of landing. The Mars 3 lander was probably damaged
on landing, so that it attempted to open up and return a TV
image of the landing area, but the signal stopped after only
20 seconds, and no image of Mars was received on Earth. Both
orbiters' photographic programs were stymied by the dust storm.
Only a single, featureless image was ever released. One orbiter
had gone into in a nearly useless orbit, anyway.

Mars 4, 5, 6, and 7 were all launched in a three-week period.
The first two were orbiters and the last two were landers.

The Mars 4 retrorocket failed enroute, so it was commanded to
take a swath of photographs of Mars as it sped past, instead of
after going into orbit, which was no longer possible.

Mars 5 successfully went into orbit and returned the first color
photos from close-up. However, contact was lost after only 22
orbits when pressurization was lost in the instrument section
where the transmitter was housed. (The electronics were not
designed to work in vacuum.)

Mars 6 returned the first direct measurements of the Martian
atmosphere during entry. However, telelemetry ceased abruptly
when the retrorocket fired. High winds were a likely cause.

Mars 7 missed the planet by 780 miles.

Info on Martian Defense Forces operations against USSR probes
was abstracted from the extremely informative and readable
The Superpower Space Race: An Explosive Rivalry through the
Solar System (1994) by Robert Reeves. Highly recommended
reference for all US and USSR lunar and planetary exploration
up through the failure of Mars Observer and the success and
eventual loss of Clementine in 1994.

-- Jeff, MDF operative in Minneapolis

.

Brad Guth

unread,
Aug 18, 2003, 1:59:18 PM8/18/03
to
Herb Schaltegger <herbsch...@spamtrap.invalid> wrote in message news:<herbschaltegger-82...@enews.newsguy.com>...

> In article <5d28ff28.03080...@posting.google.com>,
> brad...@yahoo.com (Brad Guth) wrote:
>
> > Instead of your critiquing for the purely unadulterated sake of your
> > always be right criteria, just try for once to suppose someone other
> > needed your ideas along with a little further information or
> > consideration on the "what if" aspects of a relatively tiny percentage
> > of a certain location on Venus that's otherwise loaded with purely
> > natural formations as surrounding what is otherwise far more likely
> > artificial than not, be these of patterns entirely unusual and
> > otherwise entirely unrecorded as of existing anywhere other as being
> > so natural (including Earth).
>
> Try writing fewer run-on, content-free sentences. Better yet, just stop
> spewing your insanity. Really, check your medication dosages. They are
> clearly too low.

I'll have to ask; Have you no shame, no moral responsibility, no worth
as a human?

Sorry about that, I couldn't resist because, you're all speaking of
Venus as though there has never been nor will there ever be life as
you know it existing on Venus. Otherwise, I do like very much your
inference that, where there's a will there's a way of doing just about
anything.

I already stipulated that "there's other life NOT as we know it on
Venus", or at least the biggest ever remains discovered of
pre-greenhouse life: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm

I've recently indicated upon the notion of our establishing
interplanetary communications, along with lots of numbers and
alternate ideas that should work:
http://guthvenus.tripod.laser-call-01.htm

I've just introduced the notion of establishing the lunar/moon L1.1
space elevator, thereby a moon-dirt depot and possibly even a new ISS
outpost within the massive CM:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-L1-elevator.htm

There now, I've offered three perfectly good sentences, posting three
perfectly good discoveries and/or village idiot ideas that are moon
dirt cheap and a whole lot safer than anything you've got to offer,
unless flak is valuable, as in that case I'm broke, as in flat out of
warm and fuzzy ammo, though I'll gladly gather up whatever flak comes
my way and subsequently return the favor.

BTW; there's lots of natural (green renewable) energy already esisting
on Venus, as within the pressure differentials of 4+bar/km and of the
likely 10 degrees K/km of the near surface nighttime, especially of
elevated territories.

Brad Guth

unread,
Aug 18, 2003, 2:06:27 PM8/18/03
to
I actually think air-bags are truly great, just the sort of thing
those Apollo mission landings should have utilized. Where did you get
the pathetic idea that I thought air-bags were a bad thing, especially
when they work and landing rockets don't, especially of those late 60s
fly-by-wire modulated rocket technologies?


Not that you would give a damn but, here's another means to an end
(actually several means), including the salvage of Hubble along with
the task of getting ourselves to/from and of surviving places like
Venus L2 and even Mars.

Lunar/Moon Space Elevator, plus another ISS situated within the CM

Lunar Space Elevator Linear Tether Considerations (CM @1^9 kg):
363,300 km, ME-L1 = 58,128 km, L1.1 = 63,941 km (-1738 km = 62,203 km)
405,500 km, ME-L1 = 64,880 km, L1.1 = 71,368 km (-1738 km = 69,630 km)

Not that I'm telling anyone what they shouldn't already know, such as
about dealing with space radiation is where I've learned from others
(including NASA) of what to expect at Earth L2, within the Van Allen
zone and of a couple of altitudes below or in between the Van Allen
zone and the surface of Earth. What's oddly missing is any concise
definition of what Earth L4/L5 have to offer and thereby of what the
lunar surface is like. Even clear information of what's to be expected
at ES-L1 seems to have become a secret because, of what there is to be
found simply doesn't compute for what those Apollo missions endured by
any long shot.

Of course, if you have something measured and/or calculated of Earth
L4/L5, for the solar maximum year and/or for the solar minimum year,
that's exactly what we all need to learn about, so that others or at
least that I can estimate what to expect at Venus L2, where I believe
the space environment of VL2 or VE-L2 is worth knowing, since even a
robotic mission such as a TRACE-II would need to be designed for the
radiation environment, as it's highly unlikely that the sun is going
to represent a purely UV-->IR source of energy, such as during those
extremely lucky Apollo missions and, even though the VL2 position is
roughly 90% shaded by Venus itself, there's still a good deal of solar
influx/weather that'll represent a whole lot more Sv dosage than any
human expedition can tolerate within the existing ISS shield
capabilities, especially if that's having to be based upon a 2 year
mission.

This radiation tit for tat is where the idea of affordably obtaining
tonnes of that nifty clumping moon dirt comes in real handy. Since we
can launch a manned mission, if need be in stages and assembled
somewhat like ISS. The only stumbling block is the issue of our having
to launch sufficient mass that'll surround the likes of yourself with
good enough density that'll effectively shield those onboard from the
worst the sun has to offer, not to mention whatever the galaxy has to
offer. Unfortunately, besides the rather enormous cost per tonne
delivered, the side effect of launching that amount of mass is the
resulting deposit of artificially created CO2 for the rest of us back
here on Earth, where this being from what I've learned that the
overall process of creating such mass and of having to launch along
with sufficient energy for a interplanetary mission could represent a
100 fold creation of CO2, which is a darn good thing if it were for a
planet like Mars that may need to be warmed up and simply didn't care
about further CO2 pollution but, for Earth that another confirmed "no
no".

Since I've found some references to the EL5 environment in need of as
much as 1000 g/cm2 and, I've located information upon the Earth L2
environment and of what certain densities of shielding accomplish, as
such I've interpreted and/or extrapolated upon what the EL5 radiation
environment must be. Again, if there were a concise set of radiation
tables and of sources other than just the cold-war NASA moderated
verity, then I'd not have had to bother the wizardly likes of
http://clavius.org which no matters what can't stray from their
pretentious cold-war outcome of those Apollo missions.

As another means to an end, for the prospect of accommodating a depot
of moon dirt situated in a nearly Zero-G environment seemed too good
to pass up. The idea of constructing a lunar based space elevator even
seems entirely possible, especially if the likes of those claiming any
Earth based (EM-L1) space elevator should be accomplish, as there's no
freaking contest in the fact that a lunar based elevator will become a
whole lot simpler and, that it could be accomplished within the
current level of expertise and by way of existing materials
application technology. The idea of having another ISS configured
within the massive lunar space elevator CM depot is yet another win
win for all sorts of things.

I've proposed a number of my village idiot ideas and benefits
associated with having a moon-dirt depot situated at ME-L1.1 (LL1.1),
and as usual, all I've gotten in return is either their black-hole
voids of nothingness or loads of sanctimonious flak instead of other
ideas or specific numbers, as God forbid, should some of our crack
space wizards actually stipulate upon anything specific that might end
their career that was probably phony to begin with. The following page
is simply an ongoing build, receiving corrections as well as whatever
feedback that can be put to the test (your input is welcome);
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-L1-elevator.htm

If you don't know what works but otherwise seem to know for a fact
what doesn't work, then that's the sort of information we need, as
either way this moon space elevator is a doable thing, especially as
compared to accomplishing any Earth based space elevator and/or of our
going to/from any frozen and irradiated to death planet such as Mars.

BTW; I'm all for saving the butts of those Hubble huggers (I'd even
pay or it out of my own pocket), though if only I could think of
something morally worthy for such a fine instrument and of supposedly
such qualified souls to be focused upon, such as a nighttime side of a
certain planet that just might be capable of artificially illuminating
portions of their otherwise pitch black though sufficiently
transparent nighttime clouds. But gee whiz folks, I guess I can't
think of a single god damn worthy thing for that otherwise
horrifically spendy instrument that'll soon make for another terrific
display as it burns itself up upon reentry (I guess it'll be good
riddance to a source of such terrific images of places humans will
never obtain an ounce nor a gram of worth in a thousand generations).

Brad Guth

unread,
Aug 18, 2003, 2:21:13 PM8/18/03
to
Just like you've stipulated, we've accomplished various landings, all
over the solar system (100 fold more complicated than our re-doing
anything lunar), including a few robotic probes that mostly crashed
into our moon (rather odd there's nothing interactive remaining on the
moon, nor of any subsequent highly worthwhile SAR aperture receiving
module established. Though by far unmanned landings are sufficiently
documented with all the correct numbers that seem to add up to
supporting every step of the way. Too bad that still can't be said of
those Apollo landings.
Http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm


Here is another means to an end (actually several means), including

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS discovery of LIFE on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com

Brad Guth

unread,
Aug 18, 2003, 2:27:53 PM8/18/03
to
"Ami A. Silberman" <sil...@mitre.org> wrote in message news:<3F3254DE...@mitre.org>...

Yes you can.

Robotic landings are possible, even with some dumb luck those Apollo
landings could have been robotic, though if anything went horribly
wrong there wouldn't have been any information nor images that weren't
entirely moderated by NASA.

Just like you and others have stipulated, we've accomplished various


landings, all over the solar system (100 fold more complicated than
our re-doing anything lunar), including a few robotic probes that
mostly crashed into our moon (rather odd there's nothing interactive
remaining on the moon, nor of any subsequent highly worthwhile SAR
aperture receiving module established. Though by far unmanned landings
are sufficiently documented with all the correct numbers that seem to
add up to supporting every step of the way. Too bad that still can't
be said of those Apollo landings.

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm

Jay Windley

unread,
Aug 18, 2003, 3:26:04 PM8/18/03
to

"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d28ff28.03081...@posting.google.com...

|
| Not that I'm telling anyone what they shouldn't already know,
| such as about dealing with space radiation is where I've
| learned from others (including NASA) of what to expect at
| Earth L2 ...

No, you haven't learned anything. And you resist the concerted efforts of
people to correct you.

And besides, you only learn the bare minimum -- or what you take to be the
bare minimum. What assurance do you have that your bare minimum standard is
sufficient to achieve correct understanding?

| ... what there is to be found simply doesn't compute for what


| those Apollo missions endured by any long shot.

But even though you admit to being the "village idiot," you don't for a
second examine any of your prior work to see whether an error in that -- and
not some insubstantial conspiracy -- might be the cause of the discrepancy
you believe exists.

| I'd not have had to bother the wizardly likes of
| http://clavius.org which no matters what can't stray from their
| pretentious cold-war outcome of those Apollo missions.

You seem to be the only person who has a hard time learning anything at our
web site.

Instead of sticking to the questions I ask you, you instead keep rambling on
about your various wacky theories and thereby persist in dodging those
questions. Your replies consist mostly of evasion, name-calling,
misrepresentation, and pleas to "agree to disagree."

If you really plan to give up, as you said you had, then it shouldn't be too
hard for you to say, in so many words: "I admit I have no substantiation
for my claim that the Apollo missions did not succeed as advertised."

How about it?

Jay Windley

unread,
Aug 18, 2003, 3:37:35 PM8/18/03
to

"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d28ff28.03081...@posting.google.com...
|
| Though by far unmanned landings are sufficiently documented
| with all the correct numbers that seem to add up to supporting
| every step of the way. Too bad that still can't be said of those
| Apollo landings.

Of course it can. You have been provided with the name, address, and
telephone number of the official responsible for those records, whose duty
is to provide it to those who need it. You have been provided with
commercial sources of the information to satisfy your criteria.

Unfortunately instead of evaluating that evidence and accommodating it into
your theories, you perform an ad hoc refinement of your standards. What you
claim didn't exist is shown to exist (or rather, you are shown how to prove
its existence for yourself), so you now say that something *else* is
required in order to refute yuour claim, and now *that* new thing isn't
available or doesn't exist. All this without lifting a figure to examine
the evidence itself.

That's consummate crackpottery. You obviously aren't intersted in knowing
the truth. You are only interested in creating the illusion that there is
something fishy. Your changing standards, your unwillingness to follow up
sources that may contradict you, and your general ignorance of the equipment
involved is ample evidence of that. So having made these observations, why
should anyone take you seriously? And if you have no justification for
being taken seriously, why do you continue to hose Usenet with URLs
outlining your ignorance in detail?

sts060

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 3:12:35 PM8/19/03
to
brad...@yahoo.com (Brad Guth) wrote in message news:<5d28ff28.03081...@posting.google.com>...

> "Ami A. Silberman" <sil...@mitre.org> wrote in message news:<3F3254DE...@mitre.org>...
>
> Robotic landings are possible, even with some dumb luck those Apollo
> landings could have been robotic,

Yes, we already know robotic landings are possible. A list of them
was already presented. An Apollo LM could have been made robotic,
with appropriate engineering - not "dumb luck" - but the point was to
land men on (and retrieve them from) the Moon, so they were piloted.

>though if anything went horribly
> wrong there wouldn't have been any information nor images that weren't
> entirely moderated by NASA.

Let's see. NASA was the agency responsible for implementing the
Apollo missions. Who else was supposed to be responsible for
"moderating" the information and images?

The information and images have been made quite thoroughly available
to the public - and that includes you. A great deal of it has been
placed on the Internet. More, including images/text/manuals/designs
which haven't been digitized, are available for perusal at NASA
centers. I have done it, as a regular member of the public. Other
items exist in private or corporate collections. More valuable
things, like actual lunar samples, are available to qualified
researchers.

You have insinuated that there is something odd about NASA being
responsible for collecting, storing, and disseminating information
from NASA programs. Or perhaps you are saying they are doing
something systematically sinister with this material. If you have any
real evidence of such (that has not been claimed and debunked
elsewhere), let's see it. As a taxpayer, I would be highly annoyed at
a minimum.

> Just like you and others have stipulated, we've accomplished various
> landings, all over the solar system (100 fold more complicated than
> our re-doing anything lunar),

Why is landing on Mars "100 fold more complicated" than landing on the
Moon? It is further away, but the same atmosphere that requires heat
shielding also allows for aerobraking and parachutes to slow the thing
down - not available on the Moon. Landing on Venus adds the hostile
environment. But "100 fold"? How did you come up with that, even
order of magnitude?

>including a few robotic probes that mostly crashed into our moon

The Ranger probes were designed to crash into the Moon; and there were
numerous failures. But there were multiple (I would not say "few")
robotic soft landings, some robotic sample returns, and six count 'em
six fully successful manned landings.

>(rather odd there's nothing interactive remaining on the moon,

No, it's not. It's called money. It takes money to design and build
things that will last through years of surface thermal cycling and
other exposures. It takes money to buy and run the systems that would
collect, archive and access the data, and money to pay the people to
do it. New projects come along all the time competing for this money.
Are you going to cough up the dough to do it? In short, what
*exactly* is "odd" about it?

>nor of any subsequent highly worthwhile SAR
>aperture receiving module established.

Your idea of the importance of putting such equipment on the Moon
doesn't align with the priorities of most of the space science
community, especially those who divvy up the money. OK, but that
doesn't make it "odd" either.

>Though by far unmanned landings
> are sufficiently documented with all the correct numbers that seem to
> add up to supporting every step of the way.

Correct, except for the "seem to" part. They do, no qualifiers.

>Too bad that still can't be said of those Apollo landings.

Factually incorrect. There is an enormous amount of information about
the Apollo program that adds up to anyone who is willing to learn
about it. Jay has already made this point quite clearly. Again, if
you have something concrete to back up this claim, let's please hear
it.

Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 19, 2003, 10:37:26 AM10/19/03
to
"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:qrMUa.24309$ib2.7...@twister.neo.rr.com

>
> "Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:5d28ff28.03072...@posting.google.com...
>
> <snip typica Guth lunacy>
>
> Yes, Brad, Venus is hot, all right. Far too hot for any kind of life to
> exist.

For humans, especially stupid ones, yes indeed, Venus is way too hot.

But no it's actually not too hot for lizard folk at night, as their
Venus season of nighttime is quite long and, every btu of solar influx
must exit the night side of Venus, or else there simply would not be
Venus (physics 101; energy in = energy out).

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/road-01.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-basics.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/Reservoirs.html
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/image-proof.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-bridge.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/energy-options.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/heat-is-relative.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-nocturnals.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-evolution.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-numbers.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lizard-folk.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/radio-maybe.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/airship-02.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-air.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/positive.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
and there's certainly lots more where these testy pages came from (their
dyslexic content is yet another bonus).

Regards, Brad Guth IEIS~GASA / discovery of other LIFE on Venus
Alternate URL: http://guthvenus.tripod.com phone: 1-253-8576061


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Brad Guth

unread,
Nov 8, 2003, 5:09:12 PM11/8/03
to
This may be getting some folks a wee bit off topic from Venus life,
lizard folk and all, but according to some recent feedback, I've
learned a thing or two about our nasty moon, as a place that I believe
we need to establish a lunar space elevator in order to be getting
ourselves off to visiting the wizard of Oz at Venus L2, as well as for
reaching out to those irradiated to death snowman/snowwoman on Mars:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm

Here's a little typical feedback of supposed facts from: Jay Windley
(webm...@clavius.org)
"High-energy cosmic rays do not come from the sun. They come from
outside the solar system, and our sun is the primary defense against
them. The particles released by the sun itself are of considerably
lower energy and thus their secondary effects in the ambient are
minimal."

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-moon-radiation.htm

Fortunately, I never specified upon any specific "high-energy cosmic
rays", just pointing out that our sun is certainly capable of tossing
out its fair share of far worse things than visible photons plus IR
worth of BTUs and of those nasty UVs. Obviously a supernova is worth a
thousand fold in terms of being nasty, thereby from the far off
generated galactic influx must offer a measurable degree of such, and
of the secondary radiation given off by all that infamous clumping
lunar dirt should become a fairly darn good indicator.

The assertions or premise offered by the likes of Jay Windley, that of
not only lacking an atmosphere but also without a Van Allen buffer
zone is not such a bad thing if you're out and about on the lunar
surface, seems somewhat risky if not downright lethal. I might have
come into that understanding if we're referring to an earthshine
illuminated lunar surface, but not so far if that's of any fully solar
illuminated environment while wearing a moon suit because, we're not
talking about avoiding a 270 nm UV sun burn.

Sorry about all my reverse engineering logic, or lack thereof. I was
simply trying to establish upon the amount of solar radiation that
becomes hard X-Ray class.

"High-energy cosmic rays do not come from the sun"

Do we suppose that happens to include the likes of the last couple of
weeks of solar flak?

Seems there should be some specific knowledge (excluding Apollo) of
what's what pertaining to the solar illuminated surface as opposed to
the absolute lunar nighttime environment and, of something specific
pertaining to whatever earthshine contributes.

This is somewhat like my getting a grasp upon the applied energy
(thrust) involved in accelerating something the size and mass of the
moon.

As feedback provided from: Ami Silberman (sil...@mitre.org)

"The mechanisms for the lunar recession have been well understood for
decades. In a nutshell, tides cause friction between the oceans and
the ocean floors, which transfers energy from the solid part of the
earth to the oceans. One of the effects of this friction is that the
tidal bulge is off-center, and is located "eastward" of the moon. (So
the high tide actually occurs when the moon is west of overhead.) The
result of the tidal bulge being off center is that there is a torgue
effect placed on the moon, and this in turn transfers energy from the
earth to the moon. The earth's spin rate slows, the moon is speeded in
its orbit and therefor moves further away from the earth. (This
transfer of energy is essentially a transfer of angular momentum,
which is a conserved quantity.) The historical (over geological eras)
rate of recession has varied due to varying amounts of tidal friction
due to shallower or deeper oceans, and the positions of the
continents."

For the benefit of all my loyal critics, I've conceded that there's a
darn good chance that the likes of Tim Thompson has more than a few
valid points as to his version of what's what. This following page is
just another example of my learning from the pros, of accepting other
input, which may even including the likes of what you've just
presented, that I'd not be calling flak, as there actually seems to be
some considerable worth to at least Tim's version of the lunar
recession, if I don't say so myself.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/earth-moon-energy.htm

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA http://guthvenus.tripod.com

Brad Guth

unread,
Jan 30, 2005, 9:39:37 PM1/30/05
to
I have no problem with images obtained from orbit, not from anything
Apollo wile in orbit, via Hubble or the likes of KECK, as they each
depict a mostly basalt dark moon as it should be, in places as little as
3%(coal like) reflective, at best 25% reflecting in only an extremely
few maximum lunar white-out zones.

Why did there seem to be so much that was 55+% reflective once upon the
lunar surface?

Why wasn't is much hotter than reported while supposedly walking on the
actual dark lunar surface?

Doesn't IR energy reflect?

Why was the Kodak eye (unfiltered except for a full spectrum band-pass
polarised filter) so unable to record the 256 fold increase in near-UV
and UV/a energy?

Where was the Sirius star system all of this time?

Where was good old Venus all of this time?

Why was the film exposure to the 'blue' of our American flag subdued?

Why was the 3+g/cm lunar basalt and other supposedly heavier substance
so none-reactive?

Where did all the meteorites and their impact strewn shards go?

Why was there never once a dust-bunny impacting at 30 km/s or even 3
km/s?

Why is there still nothing of interactive scientific instrumentation
deployed upon the moon?

What's the secondary difference between the illuminated side of the moon
as compared to the nighttime side, or didn't the command modules (on 7+
Apollo occasions) and numerous other robotic missions ever bother to
record squat as to such raw surface emissions of thermal and radiation
levels that should have been easily recorded from 100+km?

In spite of all the orchestrated flak, I have managed to create a few
other related topics, several of which are not specifically about our
moon or Titan, though in more than a few ways offering everything about
future space exploration and just plain old space travel that's at least
indirectly related to folks utilizing our moon as a rather necessary
gravitational booster shot, of such missions passing as close to the
moon as possible hasn't even been such a new idea, it just so happens to
coincide with the even better physics logic and values of what the
LSE-CM/ISS is good for.

"Terraforming the moon, before doing Mars or Venus"
"The Moon, LSE-CM/ISS, Venus and beyond, with He3 to burn"
"Lunar/Moon Space Elevator, plus another ISS within the CM"
"Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
"Ice Ages directly regulated by Sirius"
"SETI/GUTH Venus, no kidding"
"Terraforming the moon"
"Relocate ISS to ME-L1"

Relocation of ISS to ME-L1 is certainly much easier said than done, but
at least it's something that's been doable. For the benefit of our
environment, extracting and exporting helium-3(He3/3He) to Earth is just
a little beneficial fusion icing on the cake.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

Brad Guth

unread,
Jan 30, 2005, 10:00:11 PM1/30/05
to
Right; the V22 flies like a coffin, except that it'll also exterminate
anyone within a km as it's in the process of killing off the entire crew
and all passengers. Of course since it'll be costing (all inclusive)
billions per V22, what the heck, lets go for it. I know of some ENRON
executives that'll gladly fly the damn things instead of their going to
prison for the rest of their lives.

With some fair and ballanced reguard to those Russians and of their best
efforts at moon landings; Their government was certainly just as
corrupt, if not more so at wagging their USSR dogs to death in order for
their military to extract whatever talents and resources and for
otherwise sustaining whatever job security they could muster. So, there
simply wasn't actually ever a need nor any motivation as to their
proving we didn't do what we said we did (as that would have meant the
end of their bogus programs as well). It seems their radar tracking and
astronomy expertise wasn't half that of ours, thereby no way of proving
a damn thing, as it's their word against ours and vise versa. It seem
clear that they were just as equally busy at snookering folks within
their country, thus I'm not even certain those supposed robotic landers
of theirs ever accomplished what they said, as again we only have their
word on it (certainly no apparent technology as to prove otherwise), and
as according to how we've been cold-war brain-washed by the likes of our
very own GW Bush "high standards and accountability", as such everybody
still knows or at least perceives that you can't possibly trust a
Russian.

A little something further that's interesting about those marvelous
fly-by-rocket lunar landers that remain as uncertified. I read from
recorded history about the most advance AI/robotic landers that were
created nearly two decades after those infamous moon landings of the
early 70s that were supposedly accomplished by those nifty Russian
AI/robotic landers, whereas nearly a couple of decades later and within
the absolute prime of the Russian space-race technology and expertise of
1988, they tried twice to get something onto Phobos representing an
absolute micro moon by our standards (hardly more than 1000 fold the
gravity influence of docking robotically at ISS), yet lo and behold they
still couldn't manage their AI/robotic fly-by-rocket task.

There's lots other that can run things amuck besides the fly-by-rocket
landers imploding.

Later (1996) a third and even more technologically advanced effort
intended for Phobos never got away from Earth (not actually the robotic
lander fault so much as a fundamental package delivery complication or
perhaps more than likely via friendly cold-war sabotage from NSA/DoD),
yet today Russians offer the only surefire fully robotic missions
to/from ISS, and thus far remaining as more robotically capable than
anything our NASA has to offer. Phobos isn't hardly 0.4% the gravity
task of managing our moon, yet the effort of getting safely onto Phobos
is going to take everything them Russians have as of today, of which
they obviously didn't have to work with as of 1988, much less of when
they supposedly managed such landings upon our moon.

BTW; Where's your stash of film footage of all the required prototype
R&D upon those Russian AI/robotic landers, and then equally upon our
manned landers that seemingly still can't perform squat as of today on
behalf of getting anything onto Mars, nor even as offering a stripped
down demonstration craft of safely surviving an aerial deployment here
upon Earth remains entirely top-secret. Why is that?

At least upon Venus a rigid airship/shuttle is doable, obtaining up to
65+kg/m3 and considering the 90.5% gravity isn't all that bad either.

Brad Guth

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 11:09:26 PM2/7/05
to
I've checked into these sources and many others, and still came up
empty. Except for what's already officially published and usually posted
somewhere for the public to locate from within those NASA smoke and
mirror servers.

Of course, since you're the moon expert, and thereby the all-knowing
AI/robotic and manned lander expert; why don't you share a fully
documented R&D test flight example of those nifty fly-by-rocket landers
that can't otherwise be in any fashion or scaled demonstrated for the
public record.

Crapolla usually isn't solid evidence, especially if it's having
anything to do with a perpetrated cold-war, or the likes of all those
dead bodies as a direct result of those phony baloney WMD that you and
all of your good buddies obviously bought into hook, line and sinker.
Unfortunately, I could go on and on about what your stinking mainstream
status quo considers as solid without a freaking shred of "hard
evidence".

Unlike yourself, I have an entirely above-board ulterior motive, a
hidden agenda of sharing the truth and nothing but the truth. So,
exactly what's your problem with that?

Too bad that I actually make mistakes (being human really sucks), like
the one I'm making right about now, by way of attempting to communicate
with yet another intellectual incest cloned borg of the mainstream
status quo that has been using the resources and talents of others under
entirely false pretext, and might I offer that it's been transpiring for
nearly four decades throughout a perpetrated cold-war that still sucks,
and without a gram worth of "hard evidence" nor remorse as to justify
any of it.

Brad Guth

unread,
Jan 1, 2007, 3:44:30 PM1/1/07
to

Why bother terraforming, when it's more than good enough as is?

ESA's already at Venus, Russia is going back there next: where's ours?

Venusian Composite Rigid Airship: so what's the big insurmountable
deal?

Why the hell not invest R&D into creating a viable composite rigid
airship (Skylon or fat waverider spaceplane), on behalf of our doing
Venus?

It's not even all that hocus-pocus or having to involve the pesky likes
of all those NASA/Apollo smoke and mirrors, instead it's simply doable
within the regular laws of physics as is. The actual rigid airship as a
Venusian atmospheric probe that'll function rather nicely below their
nighttime season of clouds needn't be manned, and therefore needn't be
all that large.

Unlike most other planets, or even moons that we know of, Venus is just
getting itself started at kicking it's own DNA butt, and otherwise Mars
DNA has long been kicked, nicely cosmic zapped and then rather nicely
freeze dried to death.

The composite rigid airship as efficiently operating within the highly
buoyant Venusian environment can at least accommodate intelligent other
life in more viable ways than it's being given credit for. There has
even been good enough pictures of what's been doable by others. Yet lo
and behold, Venus remains as the most nearby and absolute most
accessible taboo/nondisclosure other orb in our solar system, that's
none the less easier and much safer than doing our moon.

Unlike our nearly frozen solid to the very core of that silly old Mars,
that's also representing an environment that's worthy of getting
yourself cosmic TBI and otherwise rather easily pulverised to death
while on that nearly naked surface, whereas on the relatively newish and
evolving planetology of Venus there's hardly any cosmic or nasty forms
of solar energy that's DNA lethal getting through all of that thick soup
of atmosphere, nor is there hardly any need of your having to dig in in
order to find more than your fair share of geothermal or terrific gas
vent issues that can be put directly to the task of extracting renewable
energy on the spot.

The vertical atmospheric thick soup of such nifty pressure and thermal
differential factors alone are clearly by themselves more than
sufficient means to sustain most any mere halfwit intelligent form of
life. That is unless you are one of these warm and fuzzy naysay Usenet
village idiots, in which case absolutely nothing is possible in the
past, present or future, so why bother.

The ongoing devoid or rather ongoing topic/author banishment of such
viable energy related ideas or even honest swags of viable
considerations from this anti-think-tank of our status quo or bust
naysay Usenet land, that's having been really good at their typically
sucking and blowing worth of infomercial crapolla spewing on behalf of
all things government and big-energy, is simply further proof-positive
that such renewable energy while on Venusian deck has been doable.

Venus is in fact a hot place, though actually it's not all that nasty of
an environment. But so what if it's hot, as long as you've got such
access to and having the sufficient smarts on behalf of utilizing the
vast amounts of renewable energy that's already there to behold?

Just because a given planet or moon is a little too hot, too cold or
even too wet for our naked bodies or physiological grasp, doesn't in of
itself mean that it's 100+% taboo. Escaping the lethal forms of cosmic
and solar radiation seems by far more of a life essential important
issue, and secondly avoiding whatever's physically incoming seems like
yet another win-win for the old gipper, especially if it's having to do
with avoiding getting seriously smacked in the butt by way of something
that has your name on it.

Venus simply couldn't possibly be any more newish, alive and kicking on
the various doors of accommodating other life, especially on behalf of
rather easily accommodating intelligent other life that's merely
visiting, possibly even of a few locally evolved species isn't outside
of this toasty Venusian box. Although, I suppose if there's lots of
cosmic radiated and otherwise meteorite pulverised dry-ice, plus
whatever remains of that sub-frozen regular old Mars ice that's perhaps
near solid to the very icy dead (older than Earth) core of Mars is still
somehow life worthy, then so be it.

These pro-Mars folks should simply impress us, as in knocking our socks
off, if they can. I'm absolutely certain that as of millions of years
ago Mars could have had a touch of life to spare, and back a good
billion some odd years even better odds yet for having sustained sizable
(larger than rad-hard microbe) forms of such other local life
(intelligent being yet to be proven unless merely visiting).

On the other real and honest hands of utilizing those regular laws of
physics, as such there is absolutely nothing that's so insurmountable
about Venus. Thinking otherwise is only the proof-positive as to how
terribly snookered and dumbfounded past the mindset point of no return
you have become.

BTW; if the absolutely bleak realm of that Mars of today has any
remainders of life to behold, then upon our own pesky moon that's still
more than a touch salty is absolutely loaded to the gills, with it's
local and cosmic DNA morgue worth of nifty spores, and you name it.
-
Brad Guth

Art Deco

unread,
Jan 1, 2007, 3:56:09 PM1/1/07
to
Brad Guth <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:5d28ff28.03072...@posting.google.com
>
>Why bother terraforming, when it's more than good enough as is?
>
>ESA's already at Venus, Russia is going back there next: where's ours?
>
>Venusian Composite Rigid Airship: so what's the big insurmountable
>deal?

It would melt and corrode, Brad.

Judging by the topic, you must still be sore you were banned from the
Bad Astronomy BB after just four posts, Brad.

Brad Guth

unread,
Jan 1, 2007, 4:23:57 PM1/1/07
to
"Art Deco" <erfc...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:010120071356091635%erfc...@usa.net

> It would melt and corrode, Brad.
>
> Judging by the topic, you must still be sore you were banned from the
> Bad Astronomy BB after just four posts, Brad.

I'm having to break my very own no-speak to any borg rule. Terribly
sorry about that.

No it wouldn't, and yes I am.

Brad Guth

unread,
Jan 1, 2007, 4:31:16 PM1/1/07
to

Venus is only "too hot for even Bad Astronomy" types because, they're
clearly one of them, the truly bad guys, the MIB kind of cloak and
dagger MI6/NSA spooks and moles as borg like folks without a soul nor so
much as a stitch of remorse.

I'll say it again Sam; Why bother with the ongoing ruse, or otherwise
with the daunting and nearly insurmountable task of having to terraform
Venus, when it's simply more than good enough as is?

Venusian Composite Rigid Airship: so what's the big insurmountable
deal?

Why the hell not invest the necessary R&D into creating a viable
composite rigid airship (hybrid Skylon or fat waverider spaceplane), on

BTW No.2; ESA's already at Venus, Russia is going back there next:
where's ours?

Art Deco

unread,
Jan 1, 2007, 6:29:35 PM1/1/07
to
Brad Guth <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Art Deco" <erfc...@usa.net> wrote in message
>news:010120071356091635%erfc...@usa.net
>
>> It would melt and corrode, Brad.
>>
>> Judging by the topic, you must still be sore you were banned from the
>> Bad Astronomy BB after just four posts, Brad.
>
>I'm having to break my very own no-speak to any borg rule. Terribly
>sorry about that.

Translation: "I'm desperate for any attention I can find."


>
>No it wouldn't, and yes I am.
>-
>Brad Guth

But you trimmed the only newsgroups where you are on-topic, Brad.

Art Deco

unread,
Jan 1, 2007, 6:32:15 PM1/1/07
to
Brad Guth <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:5d28ff28.03072...@posting.google.com
>
>Venus is only "too hot for even Bad Astronomy" types because, they're
>clearly one of them, the truly bad guys, the MIB kind of cloak and
>dagger MI6/NSA spooks and moles as borg like folks without a soul nor so
>much as a stitch of remorse.
>
>I'll say it again Sam; Why bother with the ongoing ruse, or otherwise

[100-line screed sneck]

>more than a touch salty is absolutely loaded to the gills, with it's
>local and cosmic DNA morgue worth of nifty spores, and you name it.
>
>BTW No.2; ESA's already at Venus, Russia is going back there next:
>where's ours?

Nice screed, Brad, post it a few more dozen times.


>-
>Brad Guth
>
>
>--
>Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Did you finally give up on Google, Brad?

Pat Flannery

unread,
Jan 1, 2007, 7:22:17 PM1/1/07
to

Art Deco wrote:

>But you trimmed the only newsgroups where you are on-topic, Brad.
>
>

alt.psychology.whacko ? :-D

Art Deco

unread,
Jan 1, 2007, 8:39:32 PM1/1/07
to
Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:

Heh, Brad tries so very hard to be relevant.

Bookman

unread,
Jan 1, 2007, 9:25:04 PM1/1/07
to
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 16:32:15 -0700, Art Deco <erfc...@usa.net>
wrote:

>Brad Guth <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:5d28ff28.03072...@posting.google.com
>>
>>Venus is only "too hot for even Bad Astronomy" types because, they're
>>clearly one of them, the truly bad guys, the MIB kind of cloak and
>>dagger MI6/NSA spooks and moles as borg like folks without a soul nor so
>>much as a stitch of remorse.

The inverse square law is clearly more than teh Guthball can handle.

>>
>>I'll say it again Sam; Why bother with the ongoing ruse, or otherwise
>
>[100-line screed sneck]

Thanks

>
>>more than a touch salty is absolutely loaded to the gills, with it's
>>local and cosmic DNA morgue worth of nifty spores, and you name it.

"Gobble!"
- V. Gorilla

>>
>>BTW No.2; ESA's already at Venus, Russia is going back there next:
>>where's ours?
>
>Nice screed, Brad, post it a few more dozen times.

He won't - AFAB still terrifies him.

>>-
>>Brad Guth
>>
>>
>>--
>>Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
>
>Did you finally give up on Google, Brad?

He was probably looking for a way to slurp up more "spermware".

ESL!


Brad Guth

unread,
Jan 1, 2007, 10:25:55 PM1/1/07
to
"Fred Garvin" <Gar...@Truss.net> wrote in message
news:TLhYa.509$7j6.1...@news.uswest.net

> He needs to put down the crack pipe....

Silly boys, arnt we.

Brad Guth

unread,
Jan 1, 2007, 10:31:24 PM1/1/07
to

Venus is simply cool, especially since there's so much spare and fully
renewable energy to burn (sort of speak). As such, why bother to
terraform a damn thing when it's more than good enough to go as is?

Venus has only been too hot for the likes of "Bad Astronomy" types, and
otherwise rubs our NASA the wrong way because, they're all clearly one
in the same collective, meaning they is the truly bad guys, the MIB kind
of cloak and dagger MI6/NSA spooks and moles as the borg like Skull and
Bones collective that's clearly without an actual soul nor so much as a
stitch of remorse. They used to burn us witches and our books at the
stake, though for kid's sake is why prime-time media has to somewhat
frown on that level of action (similar to those having exterminated
Cathars or pushing nuns off a bridge doesn't exactly promote good PR),
so instead they topic/author stalk, bash and as much as possible banish
whatever rocks their good but seriously rotting ship of their's, the USS
LOLLIPOP.

I'll say it again Sam; Why bother with the ongoing ruse, or otherwise

with the daunting and nearly insurmountable task of having to terraform
Venus, when it's simply more than good enough as is?

What's really important is, we have a serious Venusian composite rgid
airship gap: so what's the big insurmountable deal?

Why the hell not invest the necessary R&D into creating a viable
composite rigid airship (hybrid Skylon or fat waverider spaceplane), on

behalf of our doing Venus in style?

It's not even all that hocus-pocus or having to involve the pesky likes
of all those NASA/Apollo smoke and mirrors, instead it's simply doable
within the regular laws of physics as is. The actual rigid airship as a

Venusian atmospheric cruising probe that'll function rather nicely below


their nighttime season of clouds needn't be manned, and therefore
needn't be all that large.

Unlike most other planets, or even moons that we know of, Venus is just
getting itself started at kicking it's own DNA butt, and otherwise Mars
DNA has long been kicked, nicely cosmic zapped and then rather nicely
freeze dried to death.

The composite rigid airship as efficiently operating within the highly

buoyant Venusian environment (say cruising along at 25 km by season of
nighttime and 35 km by season of daytime) can at least accommodate


intelligent other life in more viable ways than it's being given credit
for. There has even been good enough pictures of what's been

accomplished by others. Yet lo and behold, Venus remains as by far the

BTW; if the absolutely bleak realm of whatever the Mars of today has to
offer of any remainders of Martian ife to behold, then upon our own
pesky moon that's still more than a touch salty is what has to be
absolutely loaded to the gills, with all of it's local and cosmic DNA


morgue worth of nifty spores, and you name it.

BTW No.2; ESA's already at Venus, Russia is going back there next:
where's ours?

Art Deco

unread,
Jan 1, 2007, 10:53:14 PM1/1/07
to
Brad Guth <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:5d28ff28.03072...@posting.google.com
>
>Venus is simply cool, especially since there's so much spare and fully
>renewable energy to burn (sort of speak). As such, why bother to
>terraform a damn thing when it's more than good enough to go as is?
>
>Venus has only been too hot for the likes of "Bad Astronomy" types, and
>otherwise rubs our NASA the wrong way because, they're all clearly one
>in the same collective, meaning they is the truly bad guys, the MIB kind
>of cloak and dagger MI6/NSA spooks and moles as the borg like Skull and
>Bones collective that's clearly without an actual soul nor so much as a

>FLUSH

Here's that screed again...

Brad Guth

unread,
Jan 2, 2007, 2:08:30 AM1/2/07
to

Venus is actually a very cool ans extra special planet, especially
considering there's so gosh darn much spare and fully renewable energy
to burn (sort of speak). As such, why the hell bother to terraform a


damn thing when it's more than good enough to go as is?

Venus has only been too hot for the likes of those "Bad Astronomy"
types, and otherwise for having rubbed our NASA the wrong way because,


they're all clearly one in the same collective, meaning they is the
truly bad guys, the MIB kind of cloak and dagger MI6/NSA spooks and

moles as representing the borg like Skull and Bones collective that's
clearly without an actual soul nor so much as a stitch of remorse. They
used to get away with burning us witches and our books at the stake,


though for kid's sake is why prime-time media has to somewhat frown on

that level of action (similar to avoiding being associated with those
having exterminated Cathars or pushing nuns off a bridge which doesn't


exactly promote good PR), so instead they topic/author stalk, bash and

as much as possible take to excluding evidence and/or simply banishing


whatever rocks their good but seriously rotting ship of their's, the USS

LOLLIPOP that's flying that home port flag of "up your's" USA.

I'll say it again Sam; Why bother with sustaining the ongoing ruse, or


otherwise with the daunting and nearly insurmountable task of having to
terraform Venus, when it's simply more than good enough as is?

What's really important to realize, is that we have a serious Venusian
composite rgid airship gap: so what's the big insurmountable deal with
that?

Why the hell not invest the necessary R&D into creating a viable
composite rigid airship (hybrid Skylon or fat waverider spaceplane), on

behalf of our doing Venus in grand style?

On the other very real and honest hands of utilizing those regular laws
of physics, as such there is absolutely nothing that's so terribly


insurmountable about Venus. Thinking otherwise is only the

proof-positive as to how completely snookered and dumbfounded past the


mindset point of no return you have become.

BTW; if the absolutely bleak realm of whatever the Mars of today has to
offer of any remainders of Martian ife to behold, then upon our own
pesky moon that's still more than a touch salty is what has to be
absolutely loaded to the gills, with all of it's local and cosmic DNA
morgue worth of nifty spores, and you name it.

BTW No.2; ESA's already doing Venus, Russia is going back there next:
where's ours?
-

"habshi" <hi@anony> wrote in message
news:4599a5fd...@news.clara.net
> How would you transport the energy from Venus to Earth .

First of all, screw Earth. I say; Whatever happens in Venus stays in
Venus.

However, utilizing a fairly massive rigid airship as our floating tarmac
or rather elevated launching pad on behalf of accommodating our
interplanetary Skylon or whatever spaceplane, that's of an airship
w/piggyback spaceplane that's capable of cruising at good enough
velocity above the 100 km altitude mark, is what seems rather doable.
As such, I suppose extracting a few hundred tonnes of 80+% uranium
yellowcake as valuable radioactive elements of mostly U238 could offer
an impressive payback.

What's 100 tonnes of the highest purity yellowcake worth these days?

I heard $100/yellowcake pound the other day. That's merely
$224,000/tonne

However, I suppose we could just transport the fully processeed
U238/U239, or as ready to go reactor fuels of 96% U238, and 4% U235 at
roughly $1,500/kg.

In fact, the interplanetary "tomcat" fat waverider or fancy Skylon like
spaceplane itself could become fully nuclear powered via radioactive
elements of U238/U235, as exclusively obtained from Venus.

Old pricing data: < http://www.uic.com.au/nfc.htm >
"Total cost is thus about US$ 1393 for 1 kg enriched fuel, plus about
$240 for actual fuel fabrication. This will yield about 3900 GJ thermal
energy at modern burn-up rates, or about 360,000 kWh of electricity (at
33% thermal efficiency), and does the same job as about 160 tonnes of
steaming coal for a total cost of 0.45 cents/kWh (US$) - a bit more at
lower burn-up."

There's certainly no insurmountable complications in getting the payload
tonnage of whatever's extracted away from Venus. Every 19 months Venus
gets to within nearly 100 fold the distance of our moon (that's close
enough to spit at one another), so the travel time isn't even a big
factor.

All the necessary rocket fuel(s) of CO/O2 plus whatever else can be
locally processed into even better reactive energy is also not the least
bit of a big deal since all the necessary energy for processing whatever
into damn near anything is already there to behold.

Art Deco

unread,
Jan 2, 2007, 12:13:24 PM1/2/07
to
Brad Guth <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:5d28ff28.03072...@posting.google.com
>
>Venus is actually a very cool ans extra special planet, especially
>considering there's so gosh darn much spare and fully renewable energy
>to burn (sort of speak). As such, why the hell bother to terraform a
>damn thing when it's more than good enough to go as is?
>
>Venus has only been too hot for the likes of those "Bad Astronomy"
>types, and otherwise for having rubbed our NASA the wrong way because,

YABGWABA (Yet Another Brad Guth Whine About Bad Astronomy)

Brad Guth

unread,
Jan 2, 2007, 1:06:52 PM1/2/07
to

A few more of my usual topic corrections and improvements (the best I
can do considering all the status quo flak that's tossed my way).

Besides the well insulated and CO2-->CO/O2 thermal heat exchanged
habitat potential that's technically doable within the realm of what's
known to work, the Venusian Composite Rigid Airship is what otherwise
makes Venus truly accessible. Having a to/from spaceplane is a given,
as a Fat Waverider or fancy Skylon whatever, it technically doable
within the known space travel, reentry and launch or exit technologies
that simply do not need to be invented out of thin air, just R&D
assembled and fine tuned to the point of their being reliably safe to
utilize multiple shuttle like times.

It's certainly easy to naysay Venus, but it's easier yet to simply
pillage, plunder and rape mother Venus for all she's worth, and than
some. After all, we've more than proven we can do it to Earth, so why
stop now when we're on such a roll.

The planetology of Venus is what's actually that of a very
intellectually cool and extra special planet, especially upon
considering there's so much spare and fully renewable energy to burn


(sort of speak). As such, why the hell bother to terraform a damn thing
when it's more than good enough to go as is?

Venus has only been promoted as being too hot and nasty for the likes of
those "Bad Astronomy" types, and of most others afraid of their own
shadow, plus for otherwise having rubbed our hocus-pocus NASA the wrong
way because, they're all clearly one in the same mindset collective,


meaning they is the truly bad guys, the MIB kind of cloak and dagger

MI6/NSA spooks and moles as representing the status quo borg like Skull
and Bones collective that's clearly the top naysay king of this world,
except without an actual soul nor so much as a stitch of pesky remorse.


They used to get away with burning us witches and our books at the

stake, though for our kid's sake is why prime-time and mainstream media
has to somewhat frown on that level of action (similar to their avoiding
being associated with those having exterminated Cathars or the likes of


pushing nuns off a bridge which doesn't exactly promote good PR), so

instead they proceed to topic/author stalk, bash and as much as possible


take to excluding evidence and/or simply banishing whatever rocks their
good but seriously rotting ship of their's, the USS LOLLIPOP that's
flying that home port flag of "up your's" USA.

I'll say it again Sam; Why bother with sustaining the ongoing ruse, or
otherwise with the daunting and nearly insurmountable task of having to
terraform Venus, when it's simply more than good enough as is?

What's really important of us to realize, is to appreciate that we have
a serious Venusian composite rigid airship gap: so what's the big
insurmountable deal with that?

Why the hell not invest the necessary R&D into creating a viable
composite rigid airship (hybrid Skylon or fat waverider spaceplane), on
behalf of our doing Venus in grand style?

It's not even all that hocus-pocus or having to involve the pesky likes
of all those NASA/Apollo smoke and mirrors, instead it's simply doable
within the regular laws of physics as is. The actual rigid airship as a
Venusian atmospheric cruising probe that'll function rather nicely below
their nighttime season of clouds needn't be manned, and therefore
needn't be all that large.

Unlike most other planets, or even moons that we know of, Venus is just
getting itself started at kicking it's own DNA butt, and otherwise Mars
DNA has long been kicked, nicely cosmic zapped and then rather nicely
freeze dried to death.

The composite rigid airship as efficiently operating within the highly
buoyant Venusian environment (say cruising along at 25 km by season of

nighttime and 35 km by season of daytime) can at least accommodate our
form of intelligent other life in more viable ways than it's being given
credit for. There has even been good enough SAR obtained pictures of


what's been accomplished by others. Yet lo and behold, Venus remains as
by far the most nearby and absolute most accessible taboo/nondisclosure
other orb in our solar system, that's none the less easier and much
safer than doing our moon.

Unlike our nearly frozen solid to the very core of that silly old Mars,
that's also representing an environment that's worthy of getting
yourself cosmic TBI and otherwise rather easily pulverised to death
while on that nearly naked surface, whereas on the relatively newish and

evolving planetology surface of Venus there's hardly any cosmic or nasty


forms of solar energy that's DNA lethal getting through all of that
thick soup of atmosphere, nor is there hardly any need of your having to
dig in in order to find more than your fair share of geothermal or
terrific gas vent issues that can be put directly to the task of
extracting renewable energy on the spot.

The vertical atmospheric thick soup of such nifty pressure and thermal
differential factors alone are clearly by themselves more than
sufficient means to sustain most any mere halfwit intelligent form of
life. That is unless you are one of these warm and fuzzy naysay Usenet
village idiots, in which case absolutely nothing is possible in the
past, present or future, so why bother.

The ongoing devoid or rather ongoing topic/author banishment of such

viable energy related ideas or even honest swags of any other viable


considerations from this anti-think-tank of our status quo or bust
naysay Usenet land, that's having been really good at their typically
sucking and blowing worth of infomercial crapolla spewing on behalf of
all things government and big-energy, is simply further proof-positive

that such renewable energy while on then Venusian deck has been doable.

Venus is in fact a physically hot place, though actually it's not all

of physics, as such there is absolutely nothing that's so downright


terribly insurmountable about Venus. Thinking otherwise is only the

proof-positive as to how completely snookered and dumbfounded past that
pathetic mindset point of no return you have become.

BTW; if the absolutely bleak realm of whatever that Mars of today has
to offer in the way of sharing any remainders of Martian life there is


to behold, then upon our own pesky moon that's still more than a touch
salty is what has to be absolutely loaded to the gills, with all of it's
local and cosmic DNA morgue worth of nifty spores, and you name it.

BTW No.2; ESA's already doing Venus, Russia is going back there next:
where's ours?

-

"habshi" <hi@anony> wrote in message
news:4599a5fd...@news.clara.net
> How would you transport the energy from Venus to Earth .
First of all, screw Earth. I say; Whatever happens in Venus stays in
Venus.

However, on behalf of good PR or rather tossing the Earth dog a bone,


utilizing a fairly massive rigid airship as our floating tarmac or
rather elevated launching pad on behalf of accommodating our
interplanetary Skylon or whatever spaceplane, that's of an airship

w/piggyback spaceplane combo that's capable of cruising at good enough


velocity above the 100 km altitude mark, is what seems rather doable.
As such, I suppose extracting a few hundred tonnes of 80+% uranium

yellowcake as valuable radioactive elements, of going after mostly U238
could offer an impressive payback. Venus should have more than it's
fair share of yellowcake, and no GreenPeace or ELF protesters in sight.

What's 100 tonnes of the highest purity yellowcake worth these days?

I heard $100/yellowcake pound the other day. That's merely

$220,462/tonne

However, I suppose we could just transport the fully processeed
U238/U239, or as ready to go reactor fuels of 96% U238, and 4% U235 at

roughly $1,500/kg as of today, perhaps worth $3,000/kg in the near
future.

Old pricing data: < http://www.uic.com.au/nfc.htm >
"Total cost is thus about US$ 1393 for 1 kg enriched fuel, plus about
$240 for actual fuel fabrication. This will yield about 3900 GJ thermal
energy at modern burn-up rates, or about 360,000 kWh of electricity (at
33% thermal efficiency), and does the same job as about 160 tonnes of
steaming coal for a total cost of 0.45 cents/kWh (US$) - a bit more at
lower burn-up."

BTW; our hocus-pocus government is back on the warpath for uncovering
local yellowcake, this time using the ruse of radon(Rn222) gas exposure
as their sneaky means by which they pretend to be giving a tinkers damn
about us village idiots, when in fact they simply want to know exactly
how much yellowcake your home is sitting on, or possibly how badly
contaminated they've made that environment. It's not that we don't have
yellowcake potential, it's just spread out and of relatively low purity
and thus lower energy value (like much of our coal isn't hardly worth
burning for all the trouble and soot plus released toxins and even
radiation that gets deployed via each tonne of spent coal that gets into
our above surface environment that's in the process of failing us in
more ways than mere polution).

In fact, the interplanetary "tomcat" Fat Waverider or fancy Skylon like
spaceplane itself could become fully nuclear powered via those same


radioactive elements of U238/U235, as exclusively obtained from Venus.

Therefore those nifty payloads of such fuel returned to Earth is our's
to keep, including the spent fuel remainders which unavoidably comes
along with the package deal from hell. Too bad we're still not smart
enough to figure out He3/fusion.

There's certainly no insurmountable complications in getting such
payload tonnage of whatever's extracted, away from Venus. Every 19


months Venus gets to within nearly 100 fold the distance of our moon
(that's close enough to spit at one another), so the travel time isn't
even a big factor.

All the necessary rocket fuel(s) of CO/O2 plus whatever else can be

locally processed into even better reactive thrust energy is also not
the least bit of any big deal, since all the necessary energy for


processing whatever into damn near anything is already there to behold.

In a few other not so silly words, you couldn't hardly ask for a better
home away from home planet than Venus.

Art Deco

unread,
Jan 2, 2007, 1:25:49 PM1/2/07
to
Brad Guth <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>A few more of my usual topic corrections and improvements (the best I
>can do considering all the status quo flak that's tossed my way).

Poor baby, I guess your only option is to spam your screed again.

Bookman

unread,
Jan 2, 2007, 5:10:01 PM1/2/07
to
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 11:25:49 -0700, Art Deco <erfc...@usa.net>
wrote:

>Brad Guth <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Oddly enough, none of the the "usual topic corrections" are
meaningful, since there isn't a froup named
"alt.brad-guth.meaningless.unscientific.babble".

Hi, Brad! Gonna figure out the inverse square law someday?

ESL!

--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
Hammer of Thor award, October 2005
BARBARA WOODHOUSE MEMORIAL DOG-WHISTLE AWARD
MIKE "MIGUEL" CRANSTON, TRAINED BY BOOKMAN
COOSN-266-06-89425

"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely

"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."

"ASK THE NWS, YOUR TAX DOLLAR GOES TO THEM NOT TO DR.TURI."
- Mr. Turi explains how to accurately predict hurricanes

Bookman is yet another Usenet fignuten, meaning naysayer and/or
rusemaster of their incest cloned Third Reich. In other words, you're
communicating with an intellectual if not a biological clone of
Hitler.
- Brad Guth tries to wax "scientific", but invokes Godwin, instead.

WWFSMD?

Patrick Ashley Meuser"-Bianca"

unread,
Jan 4, 2007, 1:05:46 PM1/4/07
to
It is true that there is a definite symbiosis of particle flux that exists
between planets, and that certain relationships exist in the advantages of
landing life on one planet over the next. It is also true that some day the
atmosphere of Venus could be transformed by some yet unbeknownst process to
humans, or better yet, bunkers could be built underground more time where
the exposure to the hot atmosphere and extreme pressure could be limited to
a small aperture leading the sup plantation. With a sufficient power
source, the atomosphere could still be converted on the needs of its
occupants, making a nearly self-sufficient system. Massive sections of the
crust could be evapourated with the right elements to make room for the
bunker. There would always be a route for certain commodities that are
simply unavailable on Venus though. I think the point here is that the
gravity on Venus is closes to Earth out of the planets of our solar system,
making it the most likely destination for those of us seeking their own
land(ing) for long term habitation. However, with the budgetary cuts to
NASA, don't expect any developments on this soon.

Peace and love,

Patrick Ashley Meuser"-Bianca"
Cyberneticist

"Art Deco" <erfc...@usa.net> wrote in message

news:020120071013243847%erfc...@usa.net...

Pat Flannery

unread,
Jan 4, 2007, 1:18:16 PM1/4/07
to

Patrick Ashley Meuser"-Bianca" wrote

>It is also true that some day the
>atmosphere of Venus could be transformed by some yet unbeknownst process to
>humans, or better yet, bunkers could be built underground more time where
>the exposure to the hot atmosphere and extreme pressure could be limited to
>a small aperture leading the sup plantation.
>

Unfortunately the subsurface rock these bunkers would be built in would
be as hot as the surface.

Pat

Brad Guth

unread,
Jan 4, 2007, 6:34:23 PM1/4/07
to
"Bookman" <thebo...@kc.rr.comNULL> wrote in message
news:n1mlp2pbit1on1jkr...@4ax.com

> Hi, Brad! Gonna figure out the inverse square law someday?

Don't have to because you're so smart and all.

BTW; Are you still sleeping with Art Deco?

Brad Guth

unread,
Jan 4, 2007, 6:44:54 PM1/4/07
to
"Patrick Ashley Meuser\"-Bianca\" <pme...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:Xlbnh.63999$Qm2....@read1.cgocable.net

That's rather highly conservative thinking, but at least it's topic
related and otherwise having been nicely constructive.

Even though you're a little off my path, I like where you're going with
this. Would you like to play along with a few more games of physics and
science that relate to Venus?

I have a few pesky questions that only nice folks like us can honestly
share and/or argue about. Interested?

Brad Guth

unread,
Jan 4, 2007, 7:22:47 PM1/4/07
to
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:12pqh79...@corp.supernews.com

> Unfortunately the subsurface rock these bunkers would be built in would
> be as hot as the surface.

Underground should actually be measurably hotter than, because the vast
bulk of that extremely toasty environment of such heat comes from
within. Although, there could be a few elevated areas where the older
rock has become a little less hot than the surface atmosphere by day,
and perhaps merely equal by the season of nighttime.

Much better to go with the above surface constructions utilizing locally
produced structural composites that'll provide the R-1024/m insulative
rating, of what might have a density of 128 kg/m3, and thus offering a
net mass of merely 64 kg/m3 once the buoyancy of 64 kg/m3 is subtracted.

The actual basalt insulative worth of just those milli/micro spheres are
likely worth less than 64 kg/m3, quite possibly even as little as 32
kg/m3 shouldn't be any problem to create, which imposes a slight pesky
little problem in that such raw insulative material would obviously
float away if not having been properly contained within structural
items.

Art Deco

unread,
Jan 4, 2007, 9:43:41 PM1/4/07
to
Brad Guth <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Bookman" <thebo...@kc.rr.comNULL> wrote in message
>news:n1mlp2pbit1on1jkr...@4ax.com
>
>> Hi, Brad! Gonna figure out the inverse square law someday?
>
>Don't have to because you're so smart and all.
>
>BTW; Are you still sleeping with Art Deco?
>-
>Brad Guth

Nice kookfroth, Brad.

Brad Guth

unread,
Jan 5, 2007, 2:22:32 AM1/5/07
to

Why exactly has Venus gotten itself so taboo/nondisclosure rated?

Besides the well insulated and CO2-->CO/O2 thermal heat exchanged
habitat potential that's technically doable within the realm of what's
known to work, the Venusian Composite Rigid Airship is what otherwise

makes Venus truly accessible and highly pillagable. Having the
interplanetary worth of a to/from spaceplane is a given, as a Fat
Waverider or fancy Skylon whatever, it's technically doable within known
space travel, reentry and launch/exit phase technologies that simply do
not need to be reinvented out of thin air, just good old R&D assembled


and fine tuned to the point of their being reliably safe to utilize
multiple shuttle like times.

It's certainly easy enough to naysay Venus, but it's actually easier yet


to simply pillage, plunder and rape mother Venus for all she's worth,

and than some. After all, we've more than proven that we can do such to
mother Earth without so much as a stitch of remorse none the less, so


why stop now when we're on such a roll.

The clearly newish planetology of Venus that's emerging from within is


what's actually that of a very intellectually cool and extra special

planet, especially upon considering there's so much spare and fully


renewable energy to burn (sort of speak). As such, why the hell bother
to terraform a damn thing when it's more than good enough to go as is?

Venus has only been promoted to death by the mainstream status quo's
media as being too hot and nasty on behalf of all those "Bad Astronomy"


types, and of most others afraid of their own shadow, plus for otherwise

having to avoid rubbing our hocus-pocus NASA the wrong way because,


they're all clearly one in the same mindset collective, meaning they is

the truly bad guys, the MIB kinds of cloak and dagger MI6/NSA spooks,
moles and pagan rusemasters as representing the status quo borg like
Skull and Bones collective that's clearly in charge of being the top


naysay king of this world, except without an actual soul nor so much as
a stitch of pesky remorse. They used to get away with burning us

witches and our books at the stake, though for our still innocent kid's


sake is why prime-time and mainstream media has to somewhat frown on
that level of action (similar to their avoiding being associated with
those having exterminated Cathars or the likes of pushing nuns off a
bridge which doesn't exactly promote good PR), so instead they proceed
to topic/author stalk, bash and as much as possible take to excluding

evidence and/or simply banishing whatever rocks that good but seriously


rotting ship of their's, the USS LOLLIPOP that's flying that home port
flag of "up your's" USA.

I'll say it again Sam; Why bother with sustaining the ongoing ruse, or
otherwise with the daunting and nearly insurmountable task of having to
terraform Venus, when it's simply more than good enough as is?

What's really important of us to realize, is to appreciate that we have
a serious Venusian composite rigid airship gap: so what's the big
insurmountable deal with that?

Why the hell not invest the necessary R&D into creating a viable
composite rigid airship (hybrid Skylon or fat waverider spaceplane), on
behalf of our doing Venus in grand style?

It's not even all that hocus-pocus or having to involve the pesky likes
of all those NASA/Apollo smoke and mirrors, instead it's simply doable
within the regular laws of physics as is. The actual rigid airship as a
Venusian atmospheric cruising probe that'll function rather nicely below
their nighttime season of clouds needn't be manned, and therefore
needn't be all that large.

The composite rigid airship as efficiently operating within the highly


buoyant Venusian environment (say cruising along at 25 km by season of
nighttime and 35 km by season of daytime) can at least accommodate our
form of intelligent other life in more viable ways than it's being given
credit for. There has even been good enough SAR obtained pictures of
what's been accomplished by others. Yet lo and behold, Venus remains as
by far the most nearby and absolute most accessible taboo/nondisclosure
other orb in our solar system, that's none the less easier and much
safer than doing our moon.

Unlike most other planets, or even moons that we know of, Venus is just
getting itself started at kicking it's own DNA butt, and otherwise Mars
DNA has long been kicked, nicely cosmic zapped and then rather nicely
freeze dried to death.

Venus is so unlike our nearly frozen solid to the very core of that


silly old Mars, that's also representing an environment that's worthy of
getting yourself cosmic TBI and otherwise rather easily pulverised to
death while on that nearly naked surface, whereas on the relatively
newish and evolving planetology surface of Venus there's hardly any
cosmic or nasty forms of solar energy that's DNA lethal getting through
all of that thick soup of atmosphere, nor is there hardly any need of
your having to dig in in order to find more than your fair share of
geothermal or terrific gas vent issues that can be put directly to the
task of extracting renewable energy on the spot.

The vertically empowered atmospheric thick soup of hosting such nifty


pressure and thermal differential factors alone are clearly by
themselves more than sufficient means to sustain most any mere halfwit
intelligent form of life. That is unless you are one of these warm and
fuzzy naysay Usenet village idiots, in which case absolutely nothing is
possible in the past, present or future, so why bother.

This ongoing topic that's so devoid of other contributing input, or
rather getting their usual topic/author banishment treatment imposed
against such viable energy related ideas, or even against honest swags


of any other viable considerations from this anti-think-tank of our
status quo or bust naysay Usenet land, that's having been really good at
their typically sucking and blowing worth of infomercial crapolla

spewing on behalf of their promoting all things government and


big-energy, is simply further proof-positive that such renewable energy

while on the Venusian deck has been doable.

Venus is in fact a physically hot place, though actually it's not all
that nasty of an environment. But so what if it's hot, as long as
you've got such access to and having the sufficient smarts on behalf of
utilizing the vast amounts of renewable energy that's already there to

behold, so what's the difference?

-

First of all, screw Earth. Secondly I say; Whatever happens in Venus
stays in Venus.

However, on behalf of good PR or rather tossing the Earth dog a bone,
utilizing a fairly massive rigid airship as our floating tarmac or
rather elevated launching pad on behalf of accommodating our
interplanetary Skylon or whatever spaceplane, that's of an airship
w/piggyback spaceplane combo that's capable of cruising at good enough
velocity above the 100 km altitude mark, is what seems rather doable.
As such, I suppose extracting a few hundred tonnes of 80+% uranium
yellowcake as valuable radioactive elements, of going after mostly U238
could offer an impressive payback. Venus should have more than it's
fair share of yellowcake, and no GreenPeace or ELF protesters in sight.

What's 100 tonnes of the highest purity yellowcake worth these days?

I heard $100/yellowcake pound the other day. That's merely
$220,462/tonne

However, I suppose we could just bother to transport the fully


processeed U238/U239, or as ready to go reactor fuels of 96% U238, and
4% U235 at roughly $1,500/kg as of today, perhaps worth $3,000/kg in the

near future as our fossil fuel wars rage on and on.

Old U238/U235 pricing data: < http://www.uic.com.au/nfc.htm >

"Total cost is thus about US$ 1393 for 1 kg enriched fuel, plus about
$240 for actual fuel fabrication. This will yield about 3900 GJ thermal
energy at modern burn-up rates, or about 360,000 kWh of electricity (at
33% thermal efficiency), and does the same job as about 160 tonnes of
steaming coal for a total cost of 0.45 cents/kWh (US$) - a bit more at
lower burn-up."

BTW; It seems our hocus-pocus government is back on the warpath for


uncovering local yellowcake, this time using the ruse of radon(Rn222)

gas exposure as their sneaky/stealth means by which they pretend to be


giving a tinkers damn about us village idiots, when in fact they simply
want to know exactly how much yellowcake your home is sitting on, or
possibly how badly contaminated they've made that environment. It's not
that we don't have yellowcake potential, it's just spread out and of
relatively low purity and thus lower energy value (like much of our coal
isn't hardly worth burning for all the trouble and soot plus released
toxins and even radiation that gets deployed via each tonne of spent
coal that gets into our above surface environment that's in the process
of failing us in more ways than mere polution).

In fact, the interplanetary likes of the "tomcat" Fat Waverider or
perhaps of the fancy Skylon like spaceplane itself could become fully


nuclear powered via those same radioactive elements of U238/U235, as
exclusively obtained from Venus. Therefore those nifty payloads of such

fuels returned to Earth is our's to keep, including the spent fuel


remainders which unavoidably comes along with the package deal from

hell. Too bad we're still not quite smart enough to figure out the
nearly pure thermal energy as released by Deuterium-helium-3 or
D-He3/fusion (oops! as it turns out we are smart enough, but simply
caught with our pants down because we're still w/o access to any good
resource of He3, as being clearly why we're sort of stuck in our own
silly muck).

There's certainly no insurmountable complications in getting such

payload tonnage of whatever's extracted, safely away from Venus. As
another bonus, every 19 months Venus gets to within nearly 100 fold the


distance of our moon (that's close enough to spit at one another), so
the travel time isn't even a big factor.

All the necessary rocket fuel(s) of CO/O2 plus whatever else can be
locally processed into even better reactive thrust energy is also not
the least bit of any big deal, since all the necessary energy for
processing whatever into damn near anything is already there to behold.
In a few other not so silly words, you couldn't hardly ask for a better
home away from home planet than Venus.

Art Deco

unread,
Jan 6, 2007, 4:15:46 PM1/6/07
to
Brad Guth <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:5d28ff28.03072...@posting.google.com
>
>Why exactly has Venus gotten itself so taboo/nondisclosure rated?

Why do you ask inane, stupid questions, Brad?

Brad Guth

unread,
Jan 6, 2007, 5:09:56 PM1/6/07
to
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2f4b8f6952c411cf330...@mygate.mailgate.org

Earth is getting rid of roughly 25+ millijoules/m2, with a surface area
of 5.112e14 m2, in that supposedly this represents a
minimum/conservative core loss of 13e12 joules. I tend to believe it's
worth at least for times that amount, but that's just my village idiot
swag of deductive thinking a little outside the box, as what the hell
would we ever do with 52 terajoules worth of essentially renewable and
clean energy.

Venus at 2625 ~ 2650 j/m2 of average solar influx
Surface area: 4.6e14 m2
Mass: 4.87x1024 kg
Density: 5.24 g/cm3
Local gravity: 8.87 m/s2
Escape velocity: 10.3 km/s
Albedo: 0.75 ~ 0.85

Just for another lose cannon worthy example; At an average surface
geothermal radiant heat loss of 10 j/m2 = 4.6e15 joules of available
core energy would have to exist. By any planetology standards, that's
absolutely impressive at even 10% that amount.

Fortunately, according to the existing and ongoing research of others,
the Venusian influx/radiative energy balance has been running at a loss,
which I believe has been a good thing to know and appreciate as to why
Venus is gradually getting itself cooler by each extremely long
daytime/nighttime season.

Energy flux absorbed by the Earth = 1370 x (1-0.3) / 4 = 239.7 W/m2
Energy flux absorbed by the Venus = 2650 x (1-0.8) / 4 = 132.5 W/m2

(a nifty looking document, but slower than hell if not impossible to
load)
http://planetologia.elte.hu/atlasz/6microenvironments.pdf

A whole lot better though incomplete info, and what there is to behold
is somewhat NASA and/or Old Testament skewed in order to suit their
'Earth only' mindset as to intelligent life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Venera13Surface.jpg

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html
"Even though Venus receives more solar energy than the Earth is, its
effective temperature is colder. This is due to the high albedo on
Venus (0.8): 80% of solar radiation is reflected to space and only 20%
is absorbed by the surface."

Actually it's getting primarily absorbed and rather nicely transferred
about by that extremely thick atmosphere of mostly dry CO2 and a few
hundred spare teratonnes worth of acidic clouds, and otherwise the solar
influx is extensively blocked by the robust layer of S8, and damn little
(perhaps 0.015% of 2650 j/m2) ever directly reaches the surface by means
much other than atmospheric conductive/convection.

In other words, Venus on its far outside is cooler than Earth's thin
atmospheric realm (especially by way of their extended season of
nighttime), though upon average roughly 132 j/m2 of solar influx gets
absorbed by the entire global environment of Venus (mostly accommodated
within its robust atmosphere that otherwise reflects ~80%. It's the
killer geothermal surface that we have to worry about if we're ever
planing to walk upon that toasty orb, especially in many locations of
active lava, mud/plastic flows of raw minerals or worse yet if near any
of those pesky geothermal forced S8/CO2 gas vents that should by rights
be literally hotter than hell.

Of course, so much unlike our wet environment with its relatively clear
and thus solar transparent atmospheric realm of Earth, whereas so much
of the solar IR influx directly reaches our surface, as opposed to the
Venus surface environment being rather well shielded by the fully
clouded atmosphere that also includes a substantial reflective internal
boundary layer of thermal and IR spectrum isolating S8, whereas the
actual solar influx reaching the surface via direct sunlight is thereby
extensively IR filtered/moderated long before reaching the surface, and
otherwise the visual spectrum isn't hardly worth 39 j/m2 at high noon
(the average at something less) while obviously on the sunny side, and
to be certain that hardly anything of that's going to be of IR.

This leaves us with all of those Venusian boat loads of geothermal
energy that's primarily responsible for the vast bulk of why it's so
freaking toasty on that newish planetology active deck. Of course in
physics that's a darn good thing because, via those regular laws of
physics is where all sorts of nifty alternatives for extracting such
renewable energy while you're sequestered upon Venus becomes doable,
making it entirely possible to sustain as much ice cold beer and even a
few indoor ice skating rinks if you'd like.

Too bad this anti-think-tank of our status quo Usenet from the one and
only actual hell on Earth that for some pathetic reason(s) can't manage
to pull its infomercial spewing butt-cheek brains out of the nearest
space-toilet, especially if it's having anything to do with Venus, much
less with our very own physically dark orbiting mascon and otherwise GW
worthy moon.

Art Deco

unread,
Jan 6, 2007, 5:20:46 PM1/6/07
to
Brad Guth <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Fortunately, according to the existing and ongoing research of others,

Why do you believe them, Brad? Aren't they part of the "LLPOF
MI6/NSA-GOOGLE" conspiracy?

Brad Guth

unread,
Jan 7, 2007, 9:10:34 AM1/7/07
to
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45691aa0cd207f9bb22...@mygate.mailgate.org

As I'd said directly to our warm and fuzzy NASA as of 7 years ago and
counting, there's other intelligent life existing/coexisting on Venus.

The laws of physics simply haven't changed, and the replicated science
has only gotten better.

The gauntlet of topic/author stalking, bashings and banishments has also
gotten a whole lot better at deploying their spermware/fuckware at my
poor old PC.

Besides the laws of physics and replicated science that's on my side,
I've got my observationology of deductive interpretations as to those
nifty SAR pictures, whereas they've got less than squat, it's that
simple.

The intellectual and/or scientific blockage isn't mine, and at least
unlike the mainstream status quo that'll eat their own kind, I always
flush after using the toilet.

Art Deco

unread,
Jan 7, 2007, 4:40:58 PM1/7/07
to
Brad Guth <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I always
>flush after using the toilet.

That's nice, Brad.

Brad Guth

unread,
Jan 7, 2007, 7:23:26 PM1/7/07
to
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45691aa0cd207f9bb22...@mygate.mailgate.org

I see we still have the same old infomercial crapolla to deal with, the
usual naysay gauntlet of this anti-think-tank Usenet from the
faith-based Old Testament thumping point of view.

Just because the regular laws of physics and of the newest of the best
available replicated science is on my side of this rant (similar to the
John Ackerman rant), it's as though I'm being utilized as the next best
thing to having those WMD, so that this mainstream status quo gauntlet
of mostly brown-nosed Jewish rusemasters (aka Skull and Bones minions)
can start up their WW-III in spite of the truth.

No wonder their "Bad Astronomy" kingdom is in such a long-nosey
butt-wipe pickle, and otherwise getting so downright huffy about it.

Notroll2007

unread,
Jan 7, 2007, 11:21:40 PM1/7/07
to

"Art Deco" <erfc...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:070120071440587983%erfc...@usa.net...

But I bet he doesn't always wash his hands.


Brad Guth

unread,
Jan 8, 2007, 7:20:54 AM1/8/07
to
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d28ff28.03072...@posting.google.com

Unlike our foreign exchange moon that's merely a bit salty and otherwise
physically dark and TBI as well as thermally nasty to your frail DNA,
Venus is still offering more than a toasty hot-foot, though it's from
the inside out:

What we need is a good robotic VL2 outpost, of a viable halo
station-keeping sort of Clarke Station as our next ISS platform that's
good for the safe keeping of a crew for at least 19 months at a time.
Technically, I believe this task is affordably obtainable, possibly even
via Robert Bigelow’s POOF.

As I'd thoughtfully shared so many times before, that for other than
establishing my LSE-CM/ISS before China or Russia does, notions of
terraforming the moon (though technically doable) is a seriously bad
sort of idea, especially when we've got the ready made-to-order likes of
our not so old Venus cruising so nearby, that's merely a little extra
surface toasty in spots but otherwise perfectly good to go as is.
Fortunately, Venus needs no stinking terraforming, that is unless you're
another certified village idiot moron like our resident LLPOF warlord(GW
Bush).

Because you're all so comfy cozy into play acting as though Venus is so
need-to-know or else hocus-pocus taboo, and otherwise you're all so
clearly mainstream snookered and thus easily dumbfounded by way of all
this; In spite of your own perpetrated gauntlet of having stayed the
course of those silly old thousand lights, here's some old but updated
news you can all use to blow off each of your socks, as well as to blow
off your status quo brown noses with.

I've recently learned that supposedly Earth has been getting rid of
roughly 78~79 millijoules/m2 (with a surface area of 5.112e14 m2 = 40e12
J), in that subsequently this amount of energy represents a sustained
minimum/conservative core loss of 40e12 clean joules. I tend to believe
it's worth at least twice if not 2.5 fold that amount, but that's just
my ongoing village idiot honest swag of deductive thinking a little
outside the box, as to considering what the extra amount(s) of inside
and out tidal induced energy has to contribute. As to further think,
what the hell would we ever do with so many extra terajoules worth of
essentially renewable and clean energy?

Venus at 2625 ~ 2650 j/m2 of average solar influx

(global net solar influx = 132 j/m2)
Surface geothermal energy: 21 j/m2


Surface area: 4.6e14 m2
Mass: 4.87x1024 kg
Density: 5.24 g/cm3
Local gravity: 8.87 m/s2
Escape velocity: 10.3 km/s
Albedo: 0.75 ~ 0.85

Just for sharing off another lose cannon worthy shot in the dark;
At an average surface geothermal radiant heat loss of merely 10 j/m2 =
4.6e15 joules of available core energy would have to exist (that's
roughly half the reported worth of the surplus radiated surface energy
of 21 j/m2 as having been obtained by our previous probes). By way of
any planetology standards, that's absolutely impressive energy at even
10% that amount.

Fortunately, according to the existing and ongoing research of others
(including the ESA virtis / venus express mission w/o PFS), the Venusian
solar influx/radiative energy balance has been running at a measured
loss of providing roughly 15% more energy than having been solar
contributed, which I tend to believe has been a good planetology thing
to know and appreciate as to why Venus is not only currently so toasty
but gradually getting itself cooler by each extremely long
daytime/nighttime season.

Energy flux absorbed by the Earth = 1370 x (1-0.3) / 4 = 239.7 W/m2
Energy flux absorbed by the Venus = 2650 x (1-0.8) / 4 = 132.5 W/m2

(a nifty looking document, but slower than hell if not impossible to
load)
http://planetologia.elte.hu/atlasz/6microenvironments.pdf

There's lots of other interesting though otherwise perfectly honest
deductive interpretations as soon becoming a bit outdated information
about the Venus atmosphere from John Ackerman.
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf

A whole lot better though willfully incomplete cache of info, and of


what there is to behold is somewhat NASA and/or Old Testament skewed in

order to suit their faith-based 'Earth only' mindset as to intelligent
life, and to otherwise support their one and only greenhouse theory as
representing their one and only viable basis for why Venus is so
freaking hot (too bad the regular laws of physics nor the best available
replicated science do not agree with that silly greenhouse analogy).

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html
"Even though Venus receives more solar energy than the Earth is, its
effective temperature is colder. This is due to the high albedo on
Venus (0.8): 80% of solar radiation is reflected to space and only 20%
is absorbed by the surface."

Actually it's getting primarily diverted and/or absorbed and rather


nicely transferred about by that extremely thick atmosphere of mostly

dry CO2 and a few hundred spare teratonnes worth of those acidic clouds,
and otherwise the solar influx is extensively moderated by the robust
composite layer of S8, and damn little (perhaps 0.015% of 2650 j/m2) of
the visible spectrum ever directly reaches the surface by means much
other than atmospheric conductive/convection (at least that's exactly
what our own and of those Russian probes have always been telling us).

On a clear and sunny terrestrial day that's existing right here on good
mother Earth, we're looking at better than 800 j/m2 (William Mook having
recently specified 62% as 850 j/m2) that's capable of directly impacting
our deck, and that's roughly 60% of the total solar influx which manages
to contain nearly all of the incoming IR spectrum, and that's not to
mention the secondary/recoil worth of whatever's unavoidably derived
from our extremely large and nearby moon's worth of IR/FIR, nor is there
anything tidal related as forced along by the 2e20 joules of the ongoing
orbital existence of our having that pesky moon to deal with as of the
last ice age. Now that's what I'd call greenhouse warming potential
that's nailing us from our badly polluted top down, especially effective
as our soot and various complex gas byproducts having polluted damn near
every atmospheric and terra m3 in sight, and then some.

In other words, Venus on its far outside/exterior is technically upon
average cooler than Earth's thin and relatively IR transparent
atmospheric realm (Venus being especially cooler by way of their
extended season of nighttime with the exception of the 21 j/m2 of
radiated surface energy), though upon average roughly 132 j/m2 of solar


influx gets absorbed by the entire global environment of Venus (mostly

accommodated within its robust atmosphere that otherwise reflects ~80%),
whereas there's actually a measured 153 j/m2 of nighttime radiated
energy to deal with.

It's all pretty much the killer geothermal realm of its smoking hot
surface of 21 j/m2, along with the impressive atmospheric thermal
contribution that we have to worry about if we're ever planing to walk
upon that toasty orb, getting especially hot-spot/zone nasty in many
geothermal locations of active lava, mud/plastic flows of raw minerals
or worse yet if near or forbid situated upon any of those pesky


geothermal forced S8/CO2 gas vents that should by rights be literally

hotter than hell, and going like a bat out of hell as having been kindly
pointed out to us by John Ackerman.

Of course, so much unlike our wet environment with its relatively clear
and thus solar transparent atmospheric realm of Earth, whereas so much
of the solar IR influx directly reaches our surface, as opposed to the
Venus surface environment being rather well shielded by the fully
clouded atmosphere that also includes a substantial reflective internal
boundary layer of thermal and IR spectrum isolating S8, whereas the
actual solar influx reaching the surface via direct sunlight is thereby

extensively IR filtered/moderated long before reaching that surface, and


otherwise the visual spectrum isn't hardly worth 39 j/m2 at high noon

(the average illumination being at something far less while obviously on
the sunny side, as otherwise of what's mostly local near-IR and IR/FIR
illuminated within their extended season of nighttime), and to be
certain there's hardly any significant amount of incoming solar energy
that's going to be of the IR spectrum.

This leaves us with all of those Venusian departing boat loads of
geothermal energy, of roughly 21 j/m2 that's primarily responsible for


the vast bulk of why it's so freaking toasty on that newish planetology

active deck. Of course, in physics that's a darn good thing to realize


because, via those regular laws of physics is where all sorts of nifty

alternatives for extracting from such renewable energy while you're


sequestered upon Venus becomes doable, making it entirely possible to
sustain as much ice cold beer and even a few indoor ice skating rinks if
you'd like.

Too bad this continually naysay and otherwise anti-think-tank of our
status quo Usenet, that's formulated from within the one and only actual
hell on Earth, that for some pathetic reason(s) can't manage to pull its
infomercial spewing butt-cheeks of its very own faith-based load of
disinformation spewing brains out of the nearest space-toilet,


especially if it's having anything to do with Venus, much less with our

very own physically dark and nearby orbiting mascon of our otherwise GW
worthy moon, that's so unusually massive in its ratio to Earth.

Art Deco

unread,
Jan 8, 2007, 7:31:07 PM1/8/07
to
Brad Guth <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I've recently learned

False statement.

Art Deco

unread,
Jan 8, 2007, 7:34:56 PM1/8/07
to
Brad Guth <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Too bad this continually naysay and otherwise anti-think-tank of our
>status quo Usenet, that's formulated from within the one and only actual
>hell on Earth, that for some pathetic reason(s) can't manage to pull its
>infomercial spewing butt-cheeks of its very own faith-based load of
>disinformation spewing brains out of the nearest space-toilet,
>especially if it's having anything to do with Venus, much less with our
>very own physically dark and nearby orbiting mascon of our otherwise GW
>worthy moon, that's so unusually massive in its ratio to Earth.

You really, really need to get some new material, Brad, this run-on
tripe is quite stale.

erfc...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jan 8, 2007, 7:56:03 PM1/8/07
to

LIAR!

Art Deco

Phineas T Puddleduck

unread,
Jan 8, 2007, 8:17:43 PM1/8/07
to
In article <1168304163.6...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
erfc...@hotmail.com wrote:

Now who else has an IP address of

NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.29.144.41

Pretty dishonest, jack.

--
Saucerhead lingo #137

"(we) whupped yer incredible arse bigtime" = "we were asked a lot of
unanswerable questions we decided to avoid answering and kept repeating the
same old discredited nonsense".

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Art Deco

unread,
Jan 8, 2007, 8:58:24 PM1/8/07
to
Phineas T Puddleduck <phineasp...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>In article <1168304163.6...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> erfc...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Art Deco wrote:
>> > Brad Guth <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >I've recently learned
>> >
>> > False statement.
>>
>> LIAR!
>>
>> Art Deco
>
>Now who else has an IP address of
>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.29.144.41
>
>Pretty dishonest, jack.

Clockbrain ain't too bright.

Phineas T Puddleduck

unread,
Jan 8, 2007, 9:01:35 PM1/8/07
to
In article <080120071858246955%erfc...@usa.net>,
Art Deco <erfc...@usa.net> wrote:

> >> Art Deco
> >
> >Now who else has an IP address of
> >
> >NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.29.144.41
> >
> >Pretty dishonest, jack.
>
> Clockbrain ain't too bright.

Hence his attraction to the saucerheads. Means he finds himself nearly
amongst equals.

Art Deco

unread,
Jan 8, 2007, 9:09:40 PM1/8/07
to
Phineas T Puddleduck <phineasp...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>In article <080120071858246955%erfc...@usa.net>,
> Art Deco <erfc...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> >> Art Deco
>> >
>> >Now who else has an IP address of
>> >
>> >NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.29.144.41
>> >
>> >Pretty dishonest, jack.
>>
>> Clockbrain ain't too bright.
>
>Hence his attraction to the saucerheads. Means he finds himself nearly
>amongst equals.

With emphasis on the "nearly".

Phineas T Puddleduck

unread,
Jan 8, 2007, 9:21:09 PM1/8/07
to
In article <080120071909407509%erfc...@usa.net>,
Art Deco <erfc...@usa.net> wrote:

> Phineas T Puddleduck <phineasp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <080120071858246955%erfc...@usa.net>,
> > Art Deco <erfc...@usa.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >> Art Deco
> >> >
> >> >Now who else has an IP address of
> >> >
> >> >NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.29.144.41
> >> >
> >> >Pretty dishonest, jack.
> >>
> >> Clockbrain ain't too bright.
> >
> >Hence his attraction to the saucerheads. Means he finds himself nearly
> >amongst equals.
>
> With emphasis on the "nearly".

Well, with such a low baseline to begin with....

Art Deco

unread,
Jan 8, 2007, 9:59:55 PM1/8/07
to
Phineas T Puddleduck <phineasp...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>In article <080120071909407509%erfc...@usa.net>,
> Art Deco <erfc...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> Phineas T Puddleduck <phineasp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <080120071858246955%erfc...@usa.net>,
>> > Art Deco <erfc...@usa.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> Art Deco
>> >> >
>> >> >Now who else has an IP address of
>> >> >
>> >> >NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.29.144.41
>> >> >
>> >> >Pretty dishonest, jack.
>> >>
>> >> Clockbrain ain't too bright.
>> >
>> >Hence his attraction to the saucerheads. Means he finds himself nearly
>> >amongst equals.
>>
>> With emphasis on the "nearly".
>
>Well, with such a low baseline to begin with....

...the SNR is quite low.

Phineas T Puddleduck

unread,
Jan 8, 2007, 10:03:31 PM1/8/07
to
In article <080120071959558388%erfc...@usa.net>,
Art Deco <erfc...@usa.net> wrote:

> Phineas T Puddleduck <phineasp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <080120071909407509%erfc...@usa.net>,
> > Art Deco <erfc...@usa.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Phineas T Puddleduck <phineasp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <080120071858246955%erfc...@usa.net>,
> >> > Art Deco <erfc...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >> Art Deco
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Now who else has an IP address of
> >> >> >
> >> >> >NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.29.144.41
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Pretty dishonest, jack.
> >> >>
> >> >> Clockbrain ain't too bright.
> >> >
> >> >Hence his attraction to the saucerheads. Means he finds himself nearly
> >> >amongst equals.
> >>
> >> With emphasis on the "nearly".
> >
> >Well, with such a low baseline to begin with....
>
> ...the SNR is quite low.

I suppose frooty needs a pet on board his spaceship, so keeps HJ around
to fetch sticks...

Art Deco

unread,
Jan 9, 2007, 12:27:01 AM1/9/07
to
Phineas T Puddleduck <phineasp...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>In article <080120071959558388%erfc...@usa.net>,
> Art Deco <erfc...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> Phineas T Puddleduck <phineasp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <080120071909407509%erfc...@usa.net>,
>> > Art Deco <erfc...@usa.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Phineas T Puddleduck <phineasp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <080120071858246955%erfc...@usa.net>,
>> >> > Art Deco <erfc...@usa.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> Art Deco
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Now who else has an IP address of
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.29.144.41
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Pretty dishonest, jack.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Clockbrain ain't too bright.
>> >> >
>> >> >Hence his attraction to the saucerheads. Means he finds himself nearly
>> >> >amongst equals.
>> >>
>> >> With emphasis on the "nearly".
>> >
>> >Well, with such a low baseline to begin with....
>>
>> ...the SNR is quite low.
>
>I suppose frooty needs a pet on board his spaceship, so keeps HJ around
>to fetch sticks...

Somehow I would imagine that they all fetch sticks.

Brad Guth

unread,
Jan 9, 2007, 10:30:28 AM1/9/07
to

I'll still have a few pesky questions, although our having to survive
WW-III might have pretty much nailed our global energy lusting and
global polluting coffins shut for good anyway, so what's the difference.

Why is it that only big-government and of even bigger energy cartels is
the one and only future alternative?

Why is it that real honest to God people seem to coexist within other
than science/physics/astronomy Usenet groups?

Why is that the external influences and various influx of energy that's
other than our sun can't have any whatsoever meaning to that of our
global warming, and/or of any ice age cycling situation?

Why is it that the regular laws of physics and of replicated science can
not apply the same as to other planets or moons?

Why is it that human intelligence (if purely evolutionary) has only
emerged itself since the last ice age, and then devolved into the
current lot of something less than intelligent village idiots?

When exactly did evolution switch itself into high gear, but only on
behalf of humanity?

When did we pick up our DNA/RNA codes for such arrogance, greed and
bigotry w/o remorse?

What about the superior human survival intelligence as of having
survived throughout each of the other 100 or perhaps as many as 1000 ice
ages before?

When did we shift from a mono-season and somewhat elliptical forced
environment, to that of a more circular and tilted summer/winter
environment?

Why is it that our moon (binary partner) that's by far the most
significant of factors by ratio of its mass and nearby orbit, can't be
taken seriously?

Why is it that Venus, which has so proven itself as being a world of
such newish planetology, is still treated as though it's of the exact
same vintage as Earth?

Since all significant planets have obtained moons, where's the Venus
moon(s)?

Brad Guth

unread,
Jan 9, 2007, 1:29:57 PM1/9/07
to
"erfc-1024" <erfc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168304163.6...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Speaking of the past, present and energy sucking future, and of what has
become taboo/nondisclosure to the point of topic/author banishment:

Why is this topic's Usenet index listing stuck on whatever the likes of
others had to say, even though I've posted several updates?

Apparently anything the lest bit energy renewable, or even simply new
and improved, gets by way of Usenet's auto-default naysayism and thereby
banishment, accomplishing the same policy treatment as burning witches
and their books at the stake.

Unfortunately, I still have a few of those pesky questions, although our
having to survive WW-III might soon enough nail our global energy
lusting and global polluting coffins shut for good anyway. So what's
the difference?

Why is it Usenet only permits big-government and of even bigger energy
cartels as our one and only future alternative?

Why is it that real honest to God people seem to coexist within other
than science/physics/astronomy Usenet groups?

Why is that external influences and various influx of cosmic and nearby
energy (such as via gravity or of something interstellar) that's other
than our sun, can't have any whatsoever meaning to that of our global
warming, and/or of those pesky ice age cycles as forced upon our
environment?

Why is it that the regular laws of physics and of replicated science can
not be applied the same as to other planets or moons?

Why is it that human intelligence (if purely evolutionary) has only
emerged itself since the last ice age, and then devolved into the
current lot of something less than intelligent village idiots?

When exactly did evolution switch itself into high gear, but only on

behalf of benefiting humanity?

When did we pick up our DNA/RNA codes for achieving such arrogance,


greed and bigotry w/o remorse?

What about the superior human survival intelligence as of having
survived throughout each of the other 100 or perhaps as many as 1000 ice
ages before?

When did we shift away from a mono-season, a somewhat elliptical forced
and much colder environment, to that of a more circular and tilted
summer/winter environment that's in the process of going GW postal?

Why is it that our moon (binary mascon partner) that's by far the most
significant of factors by ratio of its terrific mass and nearby orbit,


can't be taken seriously?

Why is it that Venus, having so proven itself as being a warm and fuzzy


world of such newish planetology, is still treated as though it's of the
exact same vintage as Earth?

Since all significant other planets have obtained moons or binary
partners, where's the Venus moon(s)?

Why is our solar system the one and only source of supposed intelligent
life in the known universe?

Why is Venus the one and only other planet that's nearly (about as good
as you're going to get) tidal locked to Earth?

In case you're wondering, the other hundred or so questions are in
reserve.

Art Deco

unread,
Jan 10, 2007, 10:21:48 PM1/10/07
to
Brad Guth <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Why do you ask such silly questions, Brad?

Brad Guth

unread,
Jan 11, 2007, 2:34:44 PM1/11/07
to
"Jay Windley" <webm...@clavius.org> wrote in message
news:bg9g91$3jt$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com

> "Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:5d28ff28.03073...@posting.google.com...
> |
> | Unlike Jay Windly and Henry Spencer, I'm not always right
>
> Is there some reason you need to be condescending?

Yes, actually several reasons, starting with the likes of yourself.

BTW; what's wrong with my having admitted that I'm not always right?


> | though why then should these two "all knowing" individuals
> | be essentially contradicting each other and/or why should
> | they be opposing other life NOT as we know it and/or other
> | intelligence NOT as we know it.
>
> You're *way* off base, Guth. I have no idea what you're talking about with
> respect to "life not as we know it". I have only responded to your
> statements alleging that the Apollo missions did not succeed as advertised.
> That's all I'm interested in and that's all I've responded to. You seem to
> want to drag me into your whole fantasy world, but I'm not accepting that
> invitation.

You seldom if ever have an honest idea, much less an honest clue, about
much of anything that rocks your good mainstream status quo ship
LOLLIPOP.


> You seem quite willing to put words in my mouth and attach my name to
> whatever idea boils up from your addled brain. I'm trying desperately to
> keep you on a small handful of topics upon which I can profess some degree
> of education, knowledge, and experience. You seem to want to attack every
> topic except the ones upon which I have engaged you.

Then you will not mind answering a few perfectly honest questions with
your supposedly unbiased replies, or will that be the day when your
Mormon hell freezes over?


> Can you perhaps dispense with the pseudo-political rhetoric and the
> name-calling, and engage in a suitably concise, on-topic discussion about
> the questions I've raised?

Sure thing boss.

What's the best available swag as to the thermal energy balance of
Venus?

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages