Where’s Waldo? / Brad Guth
BradGuth
done.
This "IrfanView" utility is somewhat like being digital image potty
trained, as well as being toddler approved and thus as good as any
LeapFrog pop-up book can deliver. Not that any number of equal or
better digital image methods for enlarging haven’t existed as is, but
here's yet another old one that has been perked up so that not even a
5th grader is necessary to operate it. If you can click your mouse or
one finger type with a keyboard, that's all the image processing
expertise you'll ever need.
IrfanView
http://www.irfanview.com/
PhotoZoom Pro (mac and pc)
http://www.benvista.com/main/content/content.php?page=downloads
The original GIF image file:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
If you’d care to first crop out and save the most interesting 10%
portion at 1:1, as I've previously instructed (roughly a 64 k image
file), whereas the automated enlargement process runs ten fold faster,
and perhaps another ten fold faster yet if using XP instead of Windows
7 (but that's not my fault).
Of course Apple/MAC users are not without as good or better
alternatives (PhotoZoom). However, this radar obtained image is just a
basic monochrome file of 651 k, of not all that many pixels to begin
with. So, a 10x enlargement is going to be relatively efficient and
otherwise simplified, in that not even a 5th grader is required.
Virtually all digital cameras and photo printers of any significance
come packaged along with a basic photo resizing/enlarging and their
automatic zoom filtering utility for delivering sufficient image
detail results. Commercially or via government agencies, better zoom/
enlarge or resampling results are certainly available to those with
either the necessary loot or having inside connections for using such.
Start looking for Waldo near that complex tarmac, or perhaps he’s near
that large clover shaped reservoir that’s connected to that other
reservoir, or near the fluid arch, bridge or nearby any number of
other large scale infrastructure (including those rectangular rock
quarry sites situated just north of that bridge). There’s at least 5
gold stars, a million points and your name given full credits for
finding Waldo. (team/class efforts are allowed, because there’s lots
of credit to go around)
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Hagar
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:22ab002c-d6bd-40c9...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Attention all 5th graders: Finding Waldo on Venus is easier said than
done.
< snipperoony el crapola >
There's no "there" there, GuthBall ...
Don't forget to post the "Face on Mars" again ...
Mayhaps we're not smoking the right stuff ...
bwahahahahahhh yer a Loon ...
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Your racial and ethnic bias is noted, as is seeing no change for the
better is pretty much as good as it gets with you and other blind
ZNRs. Of course, you could always prove me wrong by posting a link to
as good or better images of Venus, but then you'd have to know how
those NASA pop-up books actually work.
btw; have you ever posted or having otherwise shared an image of
anything you've accomplished or having otherwise processed? (if so
you'd be the one and only one as having done so)
Remember, no Venus Waldo means no gold stars for you.
~ BG
Nightcrawler
> Your racial and ethnic bias is noted,
Another Guthball leap of logic jumps to the fore.
> as is seeing no change for the
> better is pretty much as good as it gets with you and other blind
> ZNRs.
Ah, more inane drivel.
Of course, you could always prove me wrong by posting a link to
> as good or better images of Venus, but then you'd have to know how
> those NASA pop-up books actually work.
Hey, Guthie, that site most likely has a link to a TIFF image that will
be the highest quality available. Regardless, I'm sure that placing
your moronic ass on the surface of Venus would not change your desire
for something to be there, when it is not.
Regardless, your ZNR mindset is noted.
BradGuth
That composite GIF file is 36 averaged radar scans per 225 meter
pixel. How much better pixel truth than that do you have to offer?
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
As per usual s.e.a.n. and Rothschild status quo, you have provided us
with nothing equal or better. This is where we few honest folks get
to say: "put up or shut up".
What's the matter this time? Are all of your dysfunctional 5th
graders out to lunch, or perhaps taking their naps?
~ BG
Hagar
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
~ BG
********************************
Say, GuthBall, could you just circle exactly what it is you that you think
you are seeing there ??? Would make it much easier all around ...
oh yea, don't forget to tell us what hallucinogenic drugs we need to take
to really appreciate the mystery "pixel".
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I've already done that a good thousand times before. Now it's your
turn to knock our socks off with as good or better image processing.
If you still can't run any of those free or trial sorts of digital
image resizing/zooming utilities, then why should I bother for the
umpteenth time? (are you suggesting that you are mentally retarded or
merely pixel dysfunctional)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
Try cropping out a small 10% portion, from roughly up a third and
center, or resample/enlarge the entire GIF file to suit whatever you
consider good enough.
For a little image enlarging practice, here's lots more you can polish
your digital image processing skills. Magellan thumbnail images,
including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
~ BG
Nightcrawler
> That composite GIF file is 36 averaged radar scans per 225 meter
> pixel. How much better pixel truth than that do you have to offer?
Good enough?
BradGuth
> "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote in message
>
> news:-M-dnaYbseNtQabW...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> question,
> right guthie?
Right. I'd hardly think going into that relatively thin and
geothermally active crust is a good idea.
>
> by the way what is pixel truth? is it anything like slow ice?
36 averaged radar scans per pixel, is hardly going to represent a
bogus or phony pixel.
>
> oops now I see it, global warming is actually being initiated by the
> venusians.... oh my god, were all going to die!
Not funny, unless you are Jewish. Are you afraid Waldo is Muslim?
~ BG
BradGuth
Wow! now that's what I'd call an ultra crappy image format.
You were supposed to use normal 5th graders, not dysfunctional 2nd
graders.
~ BG
Nightcrawler
> Wow! now that's what I'd call an ultra crappy image format.
>
> You were supposed to use normal 5th graders, not dysfunctional 2nd
> graders.
I didn't use anything, idiot. As for format, I doubt you will find
much better quality than TIFF floating around, unless you want to
fly your own loony ass out to Venus and snap your own pictures using
your own radar imager and photo equipment.
As it is, radar does not give the resolution you want. Deal with it.
Hagar
~ BG
*********************************
Thanks, but no thanks, GuthTard ... I have better things to do than to
figure out what your fucked up brain sees in an image scan of Venus.
If you have something, show it. If not, join HoleFlapper and his crew
of insane make-believe numb-nutzes.
Hagar
"Nightcrawler" <Dirty...@dirtcheap.net> wrote in message
news:l9KdnajUnNJ6aKbW...@giganews.com...
You know, NC, you are attempting to communicate intelligently with
a Lunatic ?? This guy still thinks the "Face on Mars" is real and Gawd
only knows what he sees in this radar image of standard Venusian
landscape.
Hey, Happy New Year !! Hagar
BradGuth
Your incompetence, arrogance and obfuscation is noted. (the usual sean/
Rothschild status quo)
~ BG
BradGuth
> "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote in message
You know, Hagar, NC is nothing but a ZNR fuckologist, exactly like
youself.
Why don't you prove me wrong, by simply posting a link to a real
digital image enlargement of your very own? (and we don't need another
example image of your private parts)
~ BG
Nightcrawler
> You know, NC, you are attempting to communicate intelligently with
> a Lunatic ?? This guy still thinks the "Face on Mars" is real
That explains much. I like to attribute his fantasy to H.G. Wells,
or something, but Loony friggin' idiot makes more sense.
> and Gawd
> only knows what he sees in this radar image of standard Venusian
> landscape.
Darla?
> Hey, Happy New Year !! Hagar
Thanks, and the same to you.
Hagar
~ BG
*************************************
GuthBall, let's step back a sec.
You posted some non-descript radar image snippet of Venusians landscape.
You further claim to see something very revealing in the image, that,
according
to you, the rest of us "untrained" amateurs would have a rather difficult
time discerning. I enlarged the image to 260%, scanned it carefully, screen
by screen and found: NOTING. There were some groupings on the pixel level,
which a loon like you on drugs could interpret as ... something conjured up
in your feeble cranium ... but for the rest of the world it is a barren
landscape.
Now either tell us what to look for and exactly where in that image (use any
coordination system you like) and we'll give it another try. If you can't
do that, I, for one, will file this false alert in the "GuthBall's Venusian
Lighter than Air Dirigible" folder, i.e. the "Round" file. Time to fire up
your crack pipe, loon.
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
And yet you still can't manage to save that image enlargement as any
JPG, GIF or whatever format of image file so that we can see exactly
what you have to work with, and thereby you expect myself to accept
your digital photo enlargement expertise is sufficient. Once again, I
think not.
First of all, 260% is hardly a worthy digital zoom effort, of which it
doesn't even sound like you've actually resampled anything from that
original 225 m/pixel GIF image.
Even without resampling and just using a 4:1 full screen zoom or
screen magnifier on those raw GIF pixels is actually good enough for a
trained eye. However, resampling at 4:1 is going to be 16 fold
better, and better yet for the untrained or novice eye once having
been "unsharp" Lanczos or Mitchell filtered rather than just resizing
as you have done, is where those interestingly artificial looking
patterns of items clear up and stand out rather significantly.
>
> There were some groupings on the pixel level,
> which a loon like you on drugs could interpret as ... something conjured up
> in your feeble cranium ... but for the rest of the world it is a barren
> landscape.
99.95% of what I and most others (sane or insane) would see is of
perfectly natural terrain and geological features as depicted by the
vast majority of those 630,000 GIF pixels, such as that "fluid arch"
or perhaps one of those reservoir items which shouldn't be anything
but natural. It's the other less than 0.05% of all those pixels that
are in patterns that nature can not invent unless the laws of physics
and expected geology simply do not apply to the planet Venus.
>
> Now either tell us what to look for and exactly where in that image (use any
> coordination system you like) and we'll give it another try. If you can't
> do that, I, for one, will file this false alert in the "GuthBall's Venusian
> Lighter than Air Dirigible" folder, i.e. the "Round" file. Time to fire up
> your crack pipe, loon.
The original GIF image file:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
One third up and roughly center, within as little as 5% of the total
image area (31,500 pixels worth) is what a few of those pixels (say
roughly less than 315) are in patterns that look exactly like a
multitude of artificial features, that seem as rather unusually
rational infrastructure like. That’s only 0.05% out of the total GIF
image.
Once again, you need that 5th grade capability of using most any of
the digital photo zoom/enlargement utilities that includes resampling
and some basic degree of "unsharp mask" filtering that has been
industry, Hubble and government approved for more than the past couple
of decades.
For the past decade you and others of your kind haven't accepted
anything that I've offered in digital enlargements, or much less my
deductive interpretations as to their content. So this time you
wizards of such all-knowing expertise get to do it for yourself.
Posting a link to some bogus or make-do image that you haven’t even
attempted to honestly resample/enlarge is simply proof positive as to
your ulterior motives, but go right ahead and prove me wrong.
~ BG
BradGuth
That's exactly what I thought. When it comes right down to the actual
"put-up or shut-up", you've got nothing, just like all the other ZNRs
along with their army of brown-nosed minions and clowns.
~ BG
Hagar
~ BG
*********************************
I'm not wasting any more of my time in pursuit of this exercise of utter
futility. The human mind sees what it wants to see. If this were a
photograph perhaps there might be somthing there that resembles an
artificial structure ... but wait ... there are no living things on Venus to
build them (except in your head, of course). Secondly, even if, at a
point in the distant past, there had been sentient beings creating
structures on the surface, they would have long since erodes into
powder in that rather hostile and corrosive environment.
Crop and post the anomaly ... or shut the fuck up.
BradGuth
Your inability to function as a normal human is noted, as is your
inability to discover what I’ve posted as examples of my work starting
as of a decade ago. Why don’t you ask your best friends, Art Deco and
Saul Levy, to provide a copy of any number of my previously posted
images?
I just typed a search for ‘ guth venus ’or if you like ‘ venus guth ‘,
and low and behold, the first image on the Google search was rather
plain as day. This was actually a very old and somewhat contrasty
example, but it tells me that you are so dumbfounded and otherwise
entirely incapable of blowing your own nose, in that it’s no wonder
your faith-based rage has your private parts tied up in knots.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/180-A.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/images/guth-venus-180-info.jpg
The always subjective science of observationology is the direct or
indirect observation, investigation and deductive explanation of
natural phenomena. Those of you which disagree may step off the edge
of Earth if you need a better understanding as to what science is all
about. (that’s a pun or metaphor that you can disregard if you lack a
sense of humor)
~ BG
BradGuth
> > I'm not wasting any more of my time in pursuit of this exercise of utter
> > futility. The human mind sees what it wants to see. If this were a
> > photograph perhaps there might be somthing there that resembles an
> > artificial structure ... but wait ... there are no living things on Venus
> > to
> > build them (except in your head, of course). Secondly, even if, at a
> > point in the distant past, there had been sentient beings creating
> > structures on the surface, they would have long since erodes into
> > powder in that rather hostile and corrosive environment.
>
> > Crop and post the anomaly ... or shut the fuck up.
>
> all know that's not going to happen....morons just are not capable and a
> moron with delusions of grandeur are the worst....
> you wrote :
> "The human mind sees what it wants to see"
>
>
> the key word is "mind", guthie has 5 senses and six neurons and no one is
> "minding" the store. think about the rest of his kook theories. do any of
> them make sense...of course not . he's not going to show anything cropped
> because he can delude himself that only he is capable of seeing...he is the
> "all seeing guthball" in his very limited existence.
One more time in order to include all newsgroups: alt.astronomy,
uk.media.newspapers, alt.news-media, alt.planets.venus, alt.journalism
Your equally systematic inability to function as a normal human is
also noted, as is your profound inability to discover whatever I’ve
posted as examples on behalf of my research and digital image resample/
enlargement, starting as of a decade ago. In the future, why don’t
you stick with asking your very best friends, Art Deco and rabbi Saul
Levy, to provide whatever copy or links to any number of my previously
posted images? (you can also ask our NASA, because they got copies of
everything first)
Silly old me, I just typed an apparently complicated two word search
for ‘ guth venus ’or if you like ‘ venus guth ‘, and low and behold,
the first accessible image on the Google search was rather plain as
day. This was actually a very old and somewhat contrasty example of
outdated image processing, but none the less it tells me that you
crazy guys (mostly yids and otherwise brown-nosed clowns) are so
utterly dumbfounded and otherwise entirely incapable of blowing your
own nose, in that it’s no wonder your faith-based rage always has your
private parts all tied up in knots. Perhaps you couldn’t find Waldo
or anything else of interest on Venus if your pathetic and otherwise
phony lives depended on it.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/180-A.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/images/guth-venus-180-info.jpg
The always subjective science of observationology is the direct or
indirect observation, subsequent investigations and deductive
explanation of natural phenomena as based upon the best available
evidence. Those of you which disagree may step off the edge of Earth
if you need a better understanding as to what science is all about.
(that’s a pun or metaphor that you can disregard if you and your faith-
based cabal lack a sense of humor) Perhaps continued systematic
mainstream obfuscation and perpetual denial is your only option.
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." /
Einstein
Perhaps that’s my creativity problem, in that I have no hidden sources
to begin with.
~ BG
BradGuth
done.
This "IrfanView" utility is somewhat like being digital image potty
trained, as well as being toddler approved and thus as good as any
LeapFrog pop-up book can deliver. Not that any number of equal or
better digital image methods for enlarging haven’t existed as is, but
here's yet another old one that has been perked up so that not even a
5th grader is necessary to operate it. If you can click your mouse or
one finger type with a keyboard, that's all the image processing
expertise you'll ever need.
Try to remember that most of what I’ve interpreted, as other than
natural, is 500+ meters per at least one given dimension. So, it’s
all seriously big stuff, and hopefully our Venus Waldo is equally
large.
IrfanView
http://www.irfanview.com/
PhotoZoom Pro (mac and pc)
http://www.benvista.com/main/content/content.php?page=downloads
PhotoCleaner
http://www.photocleaner.com/download.html
The original GIF image file:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
If you’d care to first crop out and save the most interesting 10%
portion at 1:1, as I've previously instructed (roughly a 64 k image
file), whereas the automated enlargement or zoom w/resample process
runs ten fold faster, and perhaps another ten fold faster yet if using
XP instead of Windows 7 (but that's not my fault).
Of course Apple/MAC users are not without as good or better
alternatives (PhotoZoom). However, this radar obtained image is just a
basic monochrome GIF file of 651 k, of not all that many pixels to
begin with. So, a 10x enlargement is going to be relatively efficient
and otherwise simplified, in that not even a 5th grader is required.
Virtually all digital cameras and photo printers of any significance
come packaged along with a basic photo resizing/enlarging and their
automatic zoom filtering utility for delivering sufficient image
detail results. Commercially or via government agencies, better zoom/
enlarge or image resampling results are certainly available to those
with either the necessary loot or having inside connections for using
such.
Start looking for Waldo near that complex tarmac, or perhaps he’s
hiding somewhere near that large clover shaped reservoir that’s
connected to that other reservoir, or perhaps nearby the natural fluid
arch, under that nifty bridge or nearby any number of other large
BradGuth
> GuthBall, let's step back a sec.
> You posted some non-descript radar image snippet of Venusians landscape.
> You further claim to see something very revealing in the image, that,
> according to you, the rest of us "untrained" amateurs would have a rather
> difficult time discerning. I enlarged the image to 260%, scanned it carefully,
> screen by screen and found: NOTING.
And yet you still can't manage to save that image enlargement as any
JPG, GIF or whatever format of image file so that we can see exactly
what you have to work with, and thereby you expect myself to accept
your digital photo enlargement expertise is sufficient. Once again, I
think not.
First of all, 260% (2.6:1) is hardly a worthy digital zoom effort, of
which it doesn't even sound like you've actually resampled anything
from that original 225 m/pixel GIF image.
Even without resampling and just using a 4:1 full screen zoom or
screen magnifier on those raw GIF pixels is actually good enough for a
trained eye and a deductive brain. However, resampling at 4:1 is
going to be 16 fold better, and better yet for the untrained or novice
eye once having been "unsharp" Lanczos or Mitchell filtered rather
than just resizing as you have done, is where those interestingly
artificial looking patterns of items clear up and stand out rather
significantly.
>
> There were some groupings on the pixel level,
> which a loon like you on drugs could interpret as ... something conjured
> up in your feeble cranium ... but for the rest of the world it is a barren
> landscape.
99.95% of what I and most others (sane or insane) would see is of
perfectly natural terrain and those expected geological features as
depicted by the vast majority of those 630,000 GIF pixels, such as
that "fluid arch" or perhaps one of those reservoir items which
shouldn't be anything but natural. It's the other less than 0.05% of
all those pixels that are in patterns that nature can not invent
unless the laws of physics and expected geology simply do not apply to
the planet Venus.
>
> Now either tell us what to look for and exactly where in that image (use any
> coordination system you like) and we'll give it another try. If you can't
> do that, I, for one, will file this false alert in the "GuthBall's Venusian
> Lighter than Air Dirigible" folder, i.e. the "Round" file. Time to fire up
> your crack pipe, loon.
The original GIF image file (36 composite radar scans/pixel):
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
One third up and roughly center, within as little as 5% of the total
image area (31,500 pixels worth) is what a few of those pixels (say
roughly less than 315) are in unusual patterns that look exactly like
a multitude of artificial features, that seem as rather unusually
rational infrastructure like. That’s only 0.05% out of the total GIF
image.
Once again, you need that 5th grade capability of using most any of
the digital photo zoom/enlargement utilities that includes resampling
and some basic degree of "unsharp mask" filtering that has been
industry, Hubble and government approved for more than the past couple
of decades.
For the past decade you and others of your kind haven't accepted
anything that I've offered in digital enlargements, or much less my
deductive interpretations as to their content. So this time you
wizards of such all-knowing expertise get to do it for yourself.
Posting a link to some bogus or make-do image that you haven’t even
attempted to honestly resample/enlarge is simply proof positive as to
your ulterior motives, but go right ahead and prove me wrong.
Your systematic inability to function as a normal human is also noted,
Hagar
On Dec 31, 12:01 pm, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3fa9b314-64b0-4d5e...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 31, 6:46 am, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
>
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/180-A.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/images/guth-venus-180-info.jpg
The always subjective science of observationology is the direct or
indirect observation, investigation and deductive explanation of
natural phenomena. Those of you which disagree may step off the edge
of Earth if you need a better understanding as to what science is all
about. (that�s a pun or metaphor that you can disregard if you lack a
sense of humor)
~ BG
************************************
Lay off the crack pipe, you fucking rectal ventriloquist ...
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9f27d448-ea50-4fe0...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 31, 12:01 pm, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:3fa9b314-64b0-4d5e...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 31, 6:46 am, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
>
> < snip GuthBall Drivel >
>
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/180-A.htm
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/images/guth-venus-180-info.jpg
>
> The always subjective science of observationology is the direct or
> indirect observation, investigation and deductive explanation of
> natural phenomena. Those of you which disagree may step off the edge
> of Earth if you need a better understanding as to what science is all
> about. (that’s a pun or metaphor that you can disregard if you lack a
> sense of humor)
>
> ~ BG
> ************************************
> Lay off the crack pipe, you fucking rectal ventriloquist ...
This is another work in progress:
Extreme hot or cold is not technically insurmountable if there’s any
natural energy resource and the usual cache of raw elements on a given
planet or moon to work with. Venus most certainly has a little of
everything, and it has a lot of most things considered as essential
for sustaining intelligent other life. This doesn’t mean that going
to Venus in the buff is ever going to become a good idea, just like
our going to Mars, Titan or even our extremely nearby moon(Selene) is
never going to become an off-world Eden like or nudist camp worthy
environment regardless of how much technology and energy we pack along
for the ride (so to speak). In other words, we’ll always have to
adapt to whatever planetary or lunar environment has to offer, that is
unless it’s one nearly identical to that of Earth.
In order for us to appreciate what sort of potential a nearby planet
like Venus has to offer, you need to keep an open mindset and have
some 5th grade or better appreciation for applied physics. The best
available science also has to be continually revised, as in updated in
order to deductively reflect the greater extent or limitations of such
possibilities.
On the other hand, you can obfuscate everything away so that nothing
really matters one way or another, and you can thus pretend that the
planet Venus doesn’t even exist regardless of whatever physics,
science or applied technology has to offer. At least that would be
the usual faith-based analogy and devout Zionist failsafe mindset as
applied to anything off-world that’s other than purely inert eyecandy.
It's not my fault if others like yourself can't independently think,
ponder and deductively speculate outside of your cozy mainstream
status quo mindset. Perhaps you folks need a new religion and/or
political affiliation.
~ BG
Hagar
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f27d448-ea50-4fe0...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 31, 12:01 pm, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3fa9b314-64b0-4d5e...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 31, 6:46 am, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:91397912-544b-43e3...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 30, 6:14 pm, "Hagar" <hs...@surewest.net> wrote:
< snip sniveling GuthBall diatribe >
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/180-A.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/images/guth-venus-180-info.jpg
The always subjective science of observationology is the direct or
indirect observation, investigation and deductive explanation of
natural phenomena. Those of you which disagree may step off the edge
of Earth if you need a better understanding as to what science is all
about. (that�s a pun or metaphor that you can disregard if you lack a
sense of humor)
~ BG
*************************************
Here is what "Hagar" saw in the picture ...
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgfwg98t_145xp7wgggt
Always happy to help a Loon see things how they really are ...
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9f27d448-ea50-4fe0...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 31, 12:01 pm, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
>
> > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:3fa9b314-64b0-4d5e...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 31, 6:46 am, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
>
> > > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:91397912-544b-43e3...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Dec 30, 6:14 pm, "Hagar" <hs...@surewest.net> wrote:
>
> < snip sniveling GuthBall diatribe >
>
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/180-A.htm
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/images/guth-venus-180-info.jpg
>
> The always subjective science of observationology is the direct or
> indirect observation, investigation and deductive explanation of
> natural phenomena. Those of you which disagree may step off the edge
> of Earth if you need a better understanding as to what science is all
> about. (that s a pun or metaphor that you can disregard if you lack a
> sense of humor)
>
> ~ BG
> *************************************
>
> Here is what "Hagar" saw in the picture ...
>
> http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgfwg98t_145xp7wgggt
>
> Always happy to help a Loon see things how they really are ...
Why is your 57kb image quality so piss poor?
Is it because of mental retardation, physical impairments or simply
because you're not quite a 5th grader?
Why bother to change the list of newsgroups? "alt.alien.research,
alt.alien.visitors, alt.astronomy, alt.fan.art-bell, alt.journalism,
alt.news-media, alt.planets.venus, uk.media.newspapers"
Why are you having to speak in the third person?
Are you one of Hagar's care givers?
~ BG
BradGuth
Extreme hot or cold is not technically insurmountable if there’s any
natural energy resource and the usual cache of raw elements on a given
planet or moon to work with. Venus most certainly has a little of
everything, and it has a lot of most things considered as essential
for sustaining intelligent other life. This doesn’t mean that going
to Venus in the buff is ever going to become a good idea, just like
our going to Mars, Titan or even our extremely nearby moon(Selene) is
never going to become an off-world Eden like or nudist camp worthy
environment regardless of how much technology and energy we pack along
for the ride (so to speak). In other words, we’ll always have to
that is unless it’s one nearly identical to that of Earth.
In order for us to appreciate what sort of potential a nearby planet
like Venus has to offer, you need to keep an open mindset and have
some 5th grade or better appreciation for applied physics. The best
available science also has to be continually revised, as in updated in
order to deductively reflect the greater extent or limitations of such
possibilities.
On the other hand, you can systematically obfuscate/exclude
everything away so that nothing really matters one way or another, and
you can thus pretend that the planet Venus doesn’t even exist
regardless of whatever physics, science or applied technology has to
offer. At least that would be the usual faith-based analogy and
devout Zionist failsafe mindset as applied to anything off-world
that’s other than purely inert eyecandy.
It's not my fault if so many others can't independently think, ponder
and deductively speculate outside of that cozy mainstream status quo
mindset. Perhaps these folks need a new religion and/or political
affiliation that isn’t so negative and otherwise perpetual naysay
mindset, because if you’d care to honestly look for the positive and
constructive side of our technology accomplishing an outpost on the
planet Venus, it’s not nearly so grim or otherwise insurmountable.
Discovering other forms of biodiversity, including intelligent past
or present life on the planet Venus should not be a threat to an
honest religion. In fact, discovering of other intelligent life
should only enhance and thus benefit a true faith in a greater cosmic
power or whatever creation worthy god that’s not so Eden/terrestrial
limited.
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth
This is another Guth Venus work in progress:
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> from a bloated GIF to a JPEG. ***
>
> Is it because of mental retardation, physical impairments or simply
> because you're not quite a 5th grader?
>
> graduated from using crayons. ***
>
> Why bother to change the list of newsgroups? "alt.alien.research,
> alt.alien.visitors, alt.astronomy, alt.fan.art-bell, alt.journalism,
> alt.news-media, alt.planets.venus, uk.media.newspapers"
>
>
> Why are you having to speak in the third person?
>
> rather than just an anonymous collection of letters in the "From" column.
> ***
>
> Are you one of Hagar's care givers?
>
>
> *** Newsgroups edited ... simply because I can ... ***
So, you really can't accomplish your own digital image resampling or
proper enlarging (other than your penis). Why the hell didn't you
just say so to begin with?
~ BG
Hagar
~ BG
*****************************
You didn't ask, my little FuckTard ...
David Staup
chuckle
David Staup
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46849829-6e74-4cce...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / �Guth Usenet�
Say Brad .....
since you are convinced you know so much (chuckle) why don't you post your
theories to groups of your peers (chuckle)
try "sci.astro.research"
and "sci.physics.research" are you afraid?
I monitor these groups and never see you contribute from your vast
storehouse of knowledge and understanding (outright laugh)
what's the matter bub, no guts
Nightcrawler
>
> Lay off the crack pipe, you fucking rectal ventriloquist ...
Hmmm, crack pipe, rectal, and noise.
Are you trying to say that Guthie is a Frisco queef?
BradGuth
If you say so, it must be true.
~ BG
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
According to those of your kind (observationology impaired), there's
no peers better informed or more knowledgeable than right here.
(according to rabbi Saul, some of you even know more than Einstein)
>
> try "sci.astro.research"
> and "sci.physics.research" are you afraid?
Not at all. Thanks for the suggestion (not that I haven't been there
and done that).
>
> I monitor these groups and never see you contribute from your vast
> storehouse of knowledge and understanding (outright laugh)
> what's the matter bub, no guts
Perhaps just not enough kosher guts, but I'll certainly give those
groups a run for their mainstream money. However, such moderated
groups are relatively inactive, rather narrow minded and typically one-
sided. (guess what side that is)
Such moderated groups tend to be highly biased and otherwise
selectively cabal like enforced. They usually don't like hearing
about anything that revises the past, or affects the present or
future. (very Jewish/satanic of themselves)
~ BG
Double-A
And typically have math and concepts you can't understand.
> Such moderated groups tend to be highly biased and otherwise
> selectively cabal like enforced. They usually don't like hearing
> about anything that revises the past, or affects the present or
> future. (very Jewish/satanic of themselves)
>
> ~ BG
Revises the past? So, are you a holocaust denier?
Double-A
BradGuth
I fully understand that you are a newsgroup bipolar fuckologist:
"Where’s Wacko? / Brad Guth"
>
> > Such moderated groups tend to be highly biased and otherwise
> > selectively cabal like enforced. They usually don't like hearing
> > about anything that revises the past, or affects the present or
> > future. (very Jewish/satanic of themselves)
>
> > ~ BG
>
> Revises the past? So, are you a holocaust denier?
>
> Double-A
Revise = holocaust?
Which one of dozens of holocausts are you convinced happened exactly
as only the victors chose to interpret?
Do you always believe everything the Pope(s) had to say?
Do you always believe everything our government has to say?
Are you a devout Zionist, or just another pretend Atheist?
~ BG
David Staup
Revise = holocaust?
~ BG
let's see now
idiot, dufus, goof, and now chickenshit ....did I leave anything out...oh
yea delusional
bwak,,bwak,,bwak
BradGuth
?
Double-A
All I know is that every time I change one of your titles, my year end
bonus goes up!
> > > Such moderated groups tend to be highly biased and otherwise
> > > selectively cabal like enforced. They usually don't like hearing
> > > about anything that revises the past, or affects the present or
> > > future. (very Jewish/satanic of themselves)
>
> > > ~ BG
>
> > Revises the past? So, are you a holocaust denier?
>
> > Double-A
>
> Revise = holocaust?
>
> Which one of dozens of holocausts are you convinced happened exactly
> as only the victors chose to interpret?
>
> Do you always believe everything the Pope(s) had to say?
>
> Do you always believe everything our government has to say?
So I guess what you are trying to say in answer to my question is
"Yes".
> Are you a devout Zionist, or just another pretend Atheist?
>
> ~ BG
Most Nazis were devout Zionists. I am not a Nazi.
Double-A
BradGuth
Your obfuscation is noted. Have it your way, because that's exactly
what GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Kissinger, Hitler and most every mainstream
religion did.
>
> > Are you a devout Zionist, or just another pretend Atheist?
>
> > ~ BG
>
> Most Nazis were devout Zionists. I am not a Nazi.
>
> Double-A
In that case, you have nothing to fear about revising history in order
to reflect the best available forensics and other science. I agree
that "Most Nazis were devout Zionists", and many of these individuals
plus their next generation still hold public offices and many other
significant positions of authority. None of these ZNRs have to live
on the street, but you get to live on the street and within that
storage unit because of their persistent authority over most
everything that matters.
~ BG
Double-A
This undercover work is hard, Brad. Today I am sleeping in a storage
locker. Tomorrow I might be peeking out of your dumpster!
Double-A
Nightcrawler
<snip>
>> idiot, dufus, goof, and now chickenshit ....did I leave anything out....oh
>> yea delusional
>>
>> bwak,,bwak,,bwak
>
> ?
How about hypocrite? The retard just quoted "everything in sight",
yet griefs on others for doing the same.
BradGuth
>
> This undercover work is hard, Brad. Today I am sleeping in a storage
> locker. Tomorrow I might be peeking out of your dumpster!
>
> Double-A
As a spook/mole, you can only do so much.
At least you never type as though you are hungry, wet or cold, or
even tired.
~ BG
BradGuth
Is this your topic?
Hagar
"Nightcrawler" <Dirty...@dirtcheap.net> wrote in message
news:aeGdnSJlK4XJ7qPW...@giganews.com...
Lets just say that I think he allows his Liberal Lefty Loon (LLLs)� buddies
to plow his Hershey Highway ... how else can you get that amount of
stupidity pumped into such a small cranial volume in such a short time ...
gotta come from the bottom up ...
Nightcrawler
> Is this your topic?
What does that have to do with anything? Are these your Usenet
groups?
No, now fuck off.
BradGuth
Just because you can't perform up to your own words, is not a good
enough reason to blame others. This topic is really not asking all
that much. However, you seem to be unable to function without blaming
others for whatever you fall short of.
Perhaps 99.9% of Americans can't accomplish what I'm asking. Are you
really part of that group?
~ BG
David Staup
~ BG
that would be the 99.9% who know an idiot when they see one and just shake
their heads.
now formalize one of your theories and post it where real scientists can see
it...I suggest your electron/positron balck hole theory to
sci.physics.research
or your hollow moon theory to sci.astro.research
either one will be good for a few laughs....which is, after all, your only
way to contribute....laughing stock
or are you to chicken???
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:119282ad-8ce0-45b5...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 1, 8:07 pm, Nightcrawler <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
>
> > On 1/1/2010 8:05 PM, BradGuth wrote:
>
> > > Is this your topic?
>
> > What does that have to do with anything? Are these your Usenet
> > groups?
>
> > No, now fuck off.
>
> Just because you can't perform up to your own words, is not a good
> enough reason to blame others. This topic is really not asking all
> that much. However, you seem to be unable to function without blaming
> others for whatever you fall short of.
>
> Perhaps 99.9% of Americans can't accomplish what I'm asking. Are you
> really part of that group?
>
> ~ BG
>
> that would be the 99.9% who know an idiot when they see one and just shake
> their heads.
Will after all, they twice elected GW Bush and his trusty sidekick
Dick Cheney, so perhaps enough said for the supposed wisdom of the
average American.
>
> now formalize one of your theories and post it where real scientists can see
> it...I suggest your electron/positron balck hole theory to
> sci.physics.research
>
> or your hollow moon theory to sci.astro.research
>
> either one will be good for a few laughs....which is, after all, your only
> way to contribute....laughing stock
>
> or are you to chicken???
They already know I'm a certified lose cannon, but I just might try my
hand at those relatively inactive and narrow-mindset moderated groups
once again, in spite of their usual mainstream status quo or bust
policy. If it doesn't take, I'll simply post the same topics within
these public unmoderated Usenet/newsgroups, of which apparently
moderated group contributors are not allowed to read.
However, for the moment this one of observationology pertaining to the
planet Venus is still on my short list of things to do.
Have you got anything by example that's as good or better in digital
image processing to offer?
~ BG
David Staup
~ BG
how about a published article??? what you got dufus
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003S&T...105f.117S
BradGuth
I'll do that, but perhaps because I have so much to say is why it's
not exactly what I'm good at.
My <http://adsabs.harvard.edu/> account is "BradGuth"
~ BG
BradGuth
Apparently 5th graders don't bother with reading Usenet/newsgroups.
Public schools must be on to us. I wonder if private schools have
Google Groups and Blogs blocked out as well.
~ BG
BradGuth
K12, public and private schools are fully WWW (World Wide Whitewash)
censored.
Public and private schools are in fact web censored (aka whitewashed
and/or V-chip excluded), perhaps more so right here in the USA than in
China or most any other country. Even universities are moderated to
death and otherwise severely limited as to students accessing the full
public scope of whatever Yahoo and Google has to offer, and no doubt
MSN plays right along with this ruse.
I see “Internet4Classrooms” has their Google search disabled, as do
most every public and private school www-page, as having excluded or
blocked internet access to otherwise public accessible information,
and here I’d thought communism was a dead horse. (think again)
I bet teachers or their assistance staff would get severely
reprimanded or even fired if caught reading Usenet/newsgroups.
Google can well afford to send out individually customized pages in
order to include/exclude whatever is instructed by those in charge
(most often it takes a kosher mindset to be one of those in charge).
Key word/phrase detection is one of the most basic capabilities of
what internet and intranet servers have to work with, so it's a
relatively simple task to detect and thus robo moderate/exclude/
replace on the fly, so to speak.
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> On Dec 31, 12:01 pm, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
>
> > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > On Dec 31, 6:46 am, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
>
> > > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > On Dec 30, 6:14 pm, "Hagar" <hs...@surewest.net> wrote:
>
> < snip sniveling GuthBall diatribe >
>
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/180-A.htm
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/images/guth-venus-180-info.jpg
>
> The always subjective science of observationology is the direct or
> indirect observation, investigation and deductive explanation of
> natural phenomena. Those of you which disagree may step off the edge
> of Earth if you need a better understanding as to what science is all
> about. (that s a pun or metaphor that you can disregard if you lack a
> sense of humor)
>
> ~ BG
> *************************************
>
> Here is what "Hagar" saw in the picture ...
>
> http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgfwg98t_145xp7wgggt
>
> Always happy to help a Loon see things how they really are ...
Your usual cut and paste is noted. Too bad you can't honestly
accomplish anything of your own.
~ BG
Hagar
~ BG
***********************************
Wrong again, GuthBall. I made this, probably using the same tools
you used in creating your "fantasy" vision of non-existent structures.
BradGuth
In that case, you haven't gotten yourself past Photo LeapFrog-101.
Try to do a little better next time, by at least using any one of the
fully automated photo enlarge/zoom software alternatives that are free
for the taking, if not already included with your digital camera or
photo printer.
Stick with that original GIF composite image that's 225 meters/pixel
in the raw 1:1 monochrome 8-bit format, enlarging at least 4x < 10x
(going much larger isn't going to help, other than giving a larger raw
image display to suit your monitor or printout).
btw; I created nothing that wasn't in that raw composite radar
obtained image to start with, meaning that I excluded or included
nothing of my own pixels, but you can go right ahead and screw with
adding or subtracting as many pixels as you like, because it's
essentially impossible to do such without being easily detected.
~ BG
Hagar
~ BG
*****************************
How about this, dipshit ... I use what's at hand and I'll do it any
way I want to. At least mine was funny:
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgfwg98t_145xp7wgggt
Yours just proves that even expensive software can't cure stupidity.
Nightcrawler
> http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgfwg98t_145xp7wgggt
> Yours just proves that even expensive software can't cure stupidity.
Bwahahahahahahahahaha!
BradGuth
Your Honor, I rest my case. Hagar has once again proven the vast
benefits of trailer park incest genetic mutations.
~ BG
Hagar
~ BG
******************************************
I see ... so you're saying that your notations below on the same Venus
landscape are the product of a sane and sound mind ??
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/images/guth-venus-180-info.jpg
A psychiatrist would have a field-day with your feeble brain, GuthBall.
PS: they wouldn't even let you into a trailer park ... cockroaches
are the lowest life forms allowed.
BradGuth
As based upon perfectly logical and rational interpretation that
sticks within those pesky regular laws of physics, whereas what I've
interpreted as most likely artificial and otherwise natural, is
perfectly good to go.
>
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/images/guth-venus-180-info.jpg
>
> A psychiatrist would have a field-day with your feeble brain, GuthBall.
>
> PS: they wouldn't even let you into a trailer park ... cockroaches
> are the lowest life forms allowed.
You'd certainly know cockroaches on a personal and intimate basis.
How about you accomplish your very own enlargement. Oops! it seems
you can't.
The original GIF image file:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
IrfanView
http://www.irfanview.com/
PhotoZoom Pro (mac and pc)
http://www.benvista.com/main/content/content.php?page=downloads
PhotoCleaner
http://www.photocleaner.com/download.html
~ BG
Hagar
IrfanView
http://www.irfanview.com/
PhotoCleaner
http://www.photocleaner.com/download.html
~ BG
**************************************
It's not that I can't, GuthBall, I have no interest in enlarging barren land
scapes of the hotter then hell and nothing can live there Venusian surface.
Loon do that ... they see pools of liquid at 800C and building in an acidic
environment the would chew through concrete in a month and tunnels to
nowher. I'm surprised you didn't spot any trees there ... but, there's
still
time. As your illness progresses, they will eventually turn up for you.
BradGuth
ZNR policies?
>
> Loon do that ... they see pools of liquid at 800C and building in an acidic
> environment the would chew through concrete in a month and tunnels to
> nowher. I'm surprised you didn't spot any trees there ... but, there's
> still
> time. As your illness progresses, they will eventually turn up for you.
Your bipolar ZNR founded rage and utter blindness that's ethnic and
otherwise faith-based motivated is noted, as is your inability to cope
with anything that's not your idea or your interpretation to begin
with.
~ BG
Nightcrawler
> How about you accomplish your very own enlargement.
It didn't work for you, why should he try it?
BradGuth
Nice try.
Nightcrawler
> Nice try.
The obfuscating obfuscater of claiming obfuscation speaks again.
Now, to answer his question for you...
>>> How about you accomplish your very own enlargement.
>>
>> It didn't work for you, why should he try it?
> Because the pump will have something to work with.
BradGuth
Your kosher brain-fart is noted.
~ BG
BradGuth
> On Dec 31, 12:01 pm, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:3fa9b314-64b0-4d5e...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 31, 6:46 am, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
>
> > > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:91397912-544b-43e3...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Dec 30, 6:14 pm, "Hagar" <hs...@surewest.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > >news:l9KdnajUnNJ6aKbW...@giganews.com...
>
> > > > > On 12/30/2009 6:07 PM, BradGuth wrote:
>
> > > > >> Wow! now that's what I'd call an ultra crappy image format.
>
> > > > >> You were supposed to use normal 5th graders, not dysfunctional 2nd
> > > > >> graders.
>
> > > > > I didn't use anything, idiot. As for format, I doubt you will find
> > > > > much better quality than TIFF floating around, unless you want to
> > > > > fly your own loony ass out to Venus and snap your own pictures using
> > > > > your own radar imager and photo equipment.
>
> > > > > As it is, radar does not give the resolution you want. Deal with it.
>
> > > > You know, NC, you are attempting to communicate intelligently with
> > > > a Lunatic ?? This guy still thinks the "Face on Mars" is real and Gawd
> > > > only knows what he sees in this radar image of standard Venusian
> > > > landscape.
> > > > Hey, Happy New Year !! Hagar
>
> > > You know, Hagar, NC is nothing but a ZNR fuckologist, exactly like
> > > youself.
>
> > > Why don't you prove me wrong, by simply posting a link to a real
> > > digital image enlargement of your very own? (and we don't need another
> > > example image of your private parts)
>
> > > ~ BG
> > > *************************************
> > > GuthBall, let's step back a sec.
> > > You posted some non-descript radar image snippet of Venusians landscape.
> > > You further claim to see something very revealing in the image, that,
> > > according
> > > to you, the rest of us "untrained" amateurs would have a rather difficult
> > > time discerning. I enlarged the image to 260%, scanned it carefully,
> > > screen
> > > by screen and found: NOTING.
>
> > And yet you still can't manage to save that image enlargement as any
> > JPG, GIF or whatever format of image file so that we can see exactly
> > what you have to work with, and thereby you expect myself to accept
> > your digital photo enlargement expertise is sufficient. Once again, I
> > think not.
>
> > First of all, 260% is hardly a worthy digital zoom effort, of which it
> > doesn't even sound like you've actually resampled anything from that
> > original 225 m/pixel GIF image.
>
> > Even without resampling and just using a 4:1 full screen zoom or
> > screen magnifier on those raw GIF pixels is actually good enough for a
> > trained eye. However, resampling at 4:1 is going to be 16 fold
> > better, and better yet for the untrained or novice eye once having
> > been "unsharp" Lanczos or Mitchell filtered rather than just resizing
> > as you have done, is where those interestingly artificial looking
> > patterns of items clear up and stand out rather significantly.
>
> > > There were some groupings on the pixel level,
> > > which a loon like you on drugs could interpret as ... something conjured
> > > up
> > > in your feeble cranium ... but for the rest of the world it is a barren
> > > landscape.
>
> > 99.95% of what I and most others (sane or insane) would see is of
> > perfectly natural terrain and geological features as depicted by the
> > vast majority of those 630,000 GIF pixels, such as that "fluid arch"
> > or perhaps one of those reservoir items which shouldn't be anything
> > but natural. It's the other less than 0.05% of all those pixels that
> > are in patterns that nature can not invent unless the laws of physics
> > and expected geology simply do not apply to the planet Venus.
>
> > > Now either tell us what to look for and exactly where in that image (use
> > > any
> > > coordination system you like) and we'll give it another try. If you can't
> > > do that, I, for one, will file this false alert in the "GuthBall's
> > > Venusian
> > > Lighter than Air Dirigible" folder, i.e. the "Round" file. Time to fire
> > > up
> > > your crack pipe, loon.> > One third up and roughly center, within as little as 5% of the total
> > image area (31,500 pixels worth) is what a few of those pixels (say
> > roughly less than 315) are in patterns that look exactly like a
> > multitude of artificial features, that seem as rather unusually
> > rational infrastructure like. That’s only 0.05% out of the total GIF
> > image.
>
> > Once again, you need that 5th grade capability of using most any of
> > the digital photo zoom/enlargement utilities that includes resampling
> > and some basic degree of "unsharp mask" filtering that has been
> > industry, Hubble and government approved for more than the past couple
> > of decades.
>
> > For the past decade you and others of your kind haven't accepted
> > anything that I've offered in digital enlargements, or much less my
> > deductive interpretations as to their content. So this time you
> > wizards of such all-knowing expertise get to do it for yourself.
>
> > Posting a link to some bogus or make-do image that you haven’t even
> > attempted to honestly resample/enlarge is simply proof positive as to
> > your ulterior motives, but go right ahead and prove me wrong.
>
> > ~ BG
> > *********************************
> > I'm not wasting any more of my time in pursuit of this exercise of utter
> > futility. The human mind sees what it wants to see. If this were a
> > photograph perhaps there might be somthing there that resembles an
> > artificial structure ... but wait ... there are no living things on Venus to
> > build them (except in your head, of course). Secondly, even if, at a
> > point in the distant past, there had been sentient beings creating
> > structures on the surface, they would have long since erodes into
> > powder in that rather hostile and corrosive environment.
>
> > Crop and post the anomaly ... or shut the fuck up.
>
> Your inability to function as a normal human is noted, as is your
> inability to discover what I’ve posted as examples of my work starting
> as of a decade ago. Why don’t you ask your best friends, Art Deco and
> Saul Levy, to provide a copy of any number of my previously posted
> images?
>
> I just typed a search for ‘ guth venus ’or if you like ‘ venus guth ‘,
> and low and behold, the first image on the Google search was rather
> plain as day. This was actually a very old and somewhat contrasty
> example, but it tells me that you are so dumbfounded and otherwise
> entirely incapable of blowing your own nose, in that it’s no wonder
> your faith-based rage has your private parts tied up in knots.
>
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/180-A.htm
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/images/guth-venus-180-info.jpg
>
> The always subjective science of observationology is the direct or
> indirect observation, investigation and deductive explanation of
> natural phenomena. Those of you which disagree may step off the edge
> of Earth if you need a better understanding as to what science is all
> about. (that’s a pun or metaphor that you can disregard if you lack a
> sense of humor)
>
> ~ BG
So, where is our Venusian Waldo hiding? (under or behind which
geothermally heated rock?)
The original GIF image file:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
~ BG
BradGuth
> So, where is our Venusian Waldo hiding? (under or behind which
> geothermally heated rock?)
>
> The original GIF image file:
> http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
>
> ~ BG
For a little Venus confidence building, lets go to those Russian
missions and the ongoing ESA mission before looking back at the
Magellan and several other US missions to Venus, whereas all of which
reported that the planet itself was simply much hotter than the
surrounding atmosphere that’s rather reflective and even cryogenic at
sufficient altitude, and of those mid latitudes being by far the
coldest..
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf
http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Venus_Express/SEM5A373R8F_1.html#subhead1
How many thousand active geothermal vents and/or volcanic lava/mud hot
spots are still actively spewing and venting, and at how many
superheated tonnes per second?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/venus_earth_010702.html
“The volcanic activity on Venus is thought to be similar to the pre-
history geologic activity on Earth 2.5 billion years ago”
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+diminutive+domes+of+Venus:+they+look+volcanic+and+may+number+in...-a09136385
“The diminutive domes of Venus: they look volcanic and may number in
the millions.”
“The domes are more than mere curiosities. If in fact they are still
active and releasing magma, they will confirm a belief of many
planetary scientists, including what Arvidson calls a majority of the
Magellan team: that volcanic Venus did not cool down in a
"geologically recent" past millions of years ago, but continues to
erupt to this day.”
Couldn't it be well in excess of a thousand tonnes per second, if not
an average as great as easily spewing and venting up to an all
inclusive million of those hot tonnes per second?
By several accounts, Venus has been losing roughly an average of 20.5
w/m2, and that's only 94.3e14 watts (9430 terawatts.h).
I found a terrestrial measurement of sufficient isolation, as taken of
solid bedrock that’s under and surrounded by a thick Antarctic layer
of glacier ice, suggesting that Earth is losing <125 mw/m2, or 63.75
terawatts and that’s roughly 148 times less heat loss than Venus
without any geothermal benefit of having any moon.
~ BG
BradGuth
Unlike our uniform tradition or rather formal intellectual policy/code
of not connecting those dots of mostly public funded information,
whereas instead we outsiders (the ones paying for everything) can at
times manage to connect dots. Unfortunately, no one of authority
seems to care, not even if it means avoiding another 9/11 or most any
other sleeper cell intentions or individual threats, or much less if
it means any mainstream realization of other intelligent forms of life
existing/coexisting on Venus.
For a little Venus confidence building, lets go to those Russian
missions and the ongoing ESA mission before looking back at the
Magellan that still hasn’t been surpassed, and take into account
several other US missions to Venus, whereas all of which reported that
the planet itself was simply much hotter than the surrounding
atmosphere that’s rather solar reflective and even nighttime cryogenic
at sufficient altitude, and of those mid latitudes being by far the
coldest..
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf
http://www.esa.int/images/Picture6_H.jpg
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=39432
How many thousand active geothermal vents and/or volcanic gas/lava/mud
hot spots are still actively spewing and venting, and at how many
superheated m3 or tonnes per second? (remember that CO2 at such
geothermal venting pressure is easily worth <250 kg/m3, and then
there’s loads of S8 as equally laced with H2O that’s obviously an
acidic molecular combination)
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/venus_earth_010702.html
“The volcanic activity on Venus is thought to be similar to the pre-
history geologic activity on Earth 2.5 billion years ago”
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+diminutive+domes+of+Venus:+they+look+volcanic+and+may+number+in...-a09136385
“The diminutive domes of Venus: they look volcanic and may number in
the millions.”
“The domes are more than mere curiosities. If in fact they are still
active and releasing magma, they will confirm a belief of many
planetary scientists, including what Arvidson calls a majority of the
Magellan team: that volcanic Venus did not cool down in a
"geologically recent" past millions of years ago, but continues to
erupt to this day.”
Shouldn't this consideration be well in excess of a thousand tonnes
per second, if not an average as great as easily spewing and venting
up to an all-inclusive million of those hot tonnes per second?
By several independent accounts, Venus has been losing roughly an
average of 20.5 w/m2, and that's only 94.3e14 watts (9430
terawatts.h).
I found a terrestrial measurement of sufficient solar and atmospheric
isolation, as taken of solid bedrock that’s under and surrounded by a
thick Antarctic layer of glacier ice, suggesting that Earth is losing
<125 mw/m2, or 63.75 terawatts and that’s roughly 148 times less
global heat loss than Venus that’s smaller and without any tidal
geothermal benefit of having a moon.
~ BG
BradGuth
Unlike our uniform mainstream tradition, or rather formal intellectual
policy/code of not connecting those dots of mostly public funded
information, whereas instead we outsiders (the ones paying for
everything) can at times manage to connect a few dots by way of
deductively interpreting from the best available science.
Unfortunately, there’s no individual or group of sufficient authority
that seems to care, not even if it means avoiding another 9/11 or most
any other sleeper cell intentions or individual threats, much less if
it means any mainstream realization of other intelligent forms of life
existing/coexisting on Venus.
For a little Venus confidence building, lets go to those Russian
missions and the ongoing ESA mission before looking back at the
Magellan that still hasn’t been surpassed, and take into account
several other US missions to Venus, whereas all of which reported that
the planet itself was simply much hotter than the surrounding
atmosphere that’s rather solar reflective and even nighttime cryogenic
at sufficient altitude, and of those mid latitudes being by far the
coldest..
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf
http://www.esa.int/images/Picture6_H.jpg
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=39432
“Venus is a big planet, being heated by radioactive elements in its
interior. It should have as much volcanic activity as Earth,”
How many thousand active geothermal vents and/or volcanic gas/lava/mud
hot spots are still actively spewing and venting, and at how many
superheated m3 or tonnes per second? (remember that CO2 at such
geothermal venting pressure is easily worth <250 kg/m3, and then
there’s loads of S8 worth <2e3 kg/m3 in its fluid form, as equally
laced with H2O that’s obviously providing an acidic molecular vapor
combination that’s sufficiently buoyant within that Venusian
atmosphere)
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/venus_earth_010702.html
“The volcanic activity on Venus is thought to be similar to the pre-
history geologic activity on Earth 2.5 billion years ago”
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+diminutive+domes+of+Venus:+they+look+volcanic+and+may+number+in...-a09136385
“The diminutive domes of Venus: they look volcanic and may number in
the millions.”
“The domes are more than mere curiosities. If in fact they are still
active and releasing magma, they will confirm a belief of many
planetary scientists, including what Arvidson calls a majority of the
Magellan team: that volcanic Venus did not cool down in a
"geologically recent" past millions of years ago, but continues to
erupt to this day.”
With any substantial planet that’s similar enough to Earth, shouldn't
this nearly objective consideration be well in excess of offering a
thousand tonnes per second, if not an average as great as easily
spewing and venting up to an all-inclusive million of those hot tonnes
per second, or at the very least per hour?
By several independent accounts, Venus has been losing roughly an
average of 20.5 w/m2, and that's only 94.3e14 watts (9430
terawatts.h).
I found a terrestrial measurement of sufficient solar and atmospheric
isolation, as taken of solid bedrock that was under and otherwise
surrounded by a thick Antarctic layer of glacier ice, suggesting in
that location Earth is losing <125 mw/m2, or 63.75 terawatts and
that’s roughly 148 times less global heat loss than Venus that’s
smaller and without any tidal geothermal benefit of having a moon.
Without the OCO mission there’s still no quantified analogy of any
controlled remote thermal instrumentation data of sufficient
resolution to go by, and so often other Earth science satellite
obtained data are simply to such an extent incompatible with one
another, so much so specialized that combining their science isn’t
going to be nearly as conclusive as with direct surface measurements,
that even though extremely limited can at least be easily replicated
and thus peer approved as matter of fact. In other words, much like
our national security (DHS) that can’t manage to connect those pesky
dots of their own agencies and collaborative groups that are supposed
to be protecting us from those Muslims we keep pissing off, it seems
we still don’t have the terrestrial data base as to how much
geothermal venting of gasses, fluids and solids per second is taking
place. In many ways we know more about the thermodynamics of other
planets and moons than we do about Earth.
There’s still ESA Venus EXPRESS with its supposedly disabled PFS
science that’s otherwise excluded or obfuscated, perhaps because it’s
simply too telling as to what that toasty surface has to offer. So,
now we have Russia getting their next mission up to speed and likely
to place that lander near Guth Venus, if not deployed directly into
that Venusian tarmac.
~ BG
BradGuth
> Attention all 5th graders: Finding Waldo on Venus is easier said than
> done.
>
> This "IrfanView" utility is somewhat like being digital image potty
> trained, as well as being toddler approved and thus as good as any
> LeapFrog pop-up book can deliver. Not that any number of equal or
> better digital image methods for enlarging haven’t existed as is, but
> here's yet another old one that has been perked up so that not even a
> 5th grader is necessary to operate it. If you can click your mouse or
> one finger type with a keyboard, that's all the image processing
> expertise you'll ever need.
>
> Try to remember that most of what I’ve interpreted, as other than
> natural, is 500+ meters per at least one given dimension. So, it’s
> all seriously big stuff, and hopefully our Venus Waldo is equally
> large.
>
> http://www.irfanview.com/
>
> PhotoZoom Pro (mac and pc)
> http://www.benvista.com/main/content/content.php?page=downloads
>
> PhotoCleaner
> http://www.photocleaner.com/download.html
>
Unlike our uniform mainstream tradition, or rather formal intellectual
least a thousand geothermal tonnes per second, if not an average as
BradGuth
muster up another mission, then why can't we?
> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/venus_earth_010702....
> “The volcanic activity on Venus is thought to be similar to the pre-
> history geologic activity on Earth 2.5 billion years ago”
> http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+diminutive+domes+of+Venus:+they+loo...
Perhaps a robotic lander and a few long-duration composite airships
that can cruise efficiently below those acidic clouds for months on
end as the next logical step, is simply asking too much of anything
our DARPA, JPL and NASA can manage.
~ BG
arare litus
> What's the big holdup? If Russia can manage lander on Venus, and
> muster up another mission, then why can't we?
China built a wall between them and Mongolia. Why can't we build one
between Mexico and the United States?
BradGuth
> On 1/10/2010 1:06 PM, BradGuth wrote:
>
> > muster up yet another mission, then why can't we?
>
> China built a wall between them and Mongolia. Why can't we build one
> between Mexico and the United States?
Mexicans are simply smarter than us, as well as better motivated.
That wall should be replaced by a thousand of my visa green-card
vending machines, giving out temporary passes at $1(greenback)/day.
Imagine the flow of USDs per day coming back to us.
~ BG
arare litus
This has nothing to do with the discussion.
Again, why not build a wall? We all know that the Great Wall of China
did not help the Chinese, yet this fact did not stop them from building
it.
Should the United States follow that path, or implement a better plan?
Using the above analogy, think of your question and answer the following
question:
Other than satisfying your own personal interest, what is the benefit
for the rest of the people in real, tangible gains in knowledge or
ability developed? If the Russians are doing this, on their own, why
not focus on another task?
BradGuth
> On 1/10/2010 9:53 PM, BradGuth wrote:
>
> > On Jan 10, 1:37 pm, arare litus<litus.arare@gmaildotcom> wrote:
> >> On 1/10/2010 1:06 PM, BradGuth wrote:
>
> >>> What's the big holdup? If Russia can manage landers on Venus, and
> >>> muster up yet another mission, then why can't we?
>
> >> China built a wall between them and Mongolia. Why can't we build one
> >> between Mexico and the United States?
>
> > Mexicans are simply smarter than us, as well as better motivated.
>
> > That wall should be replaced by a thousand of my visa green-card
> > vending machines, giving out temporary passes at $1(greenback)/day.
> > Imagine the flow of USDs per day coming back to us.
>
> This has nothing to do with the discussion.
>
> Again, why not build a wall? We all know that the Great Wall of China
> did not help the Chinese, yet this fact did not stop them from building
> it.
"This has nothing to do with the discussion" of "Where’s Venus
Waldo? / Brad Guth"
>
> Should the United States follow that path, or implement a better plan?
>
> Using the above analogy, think of your question and answer the following
> question:
>
> Other than satisfying your own personal interest, what is the benefit
> for the rest of the people in real, tangible gains in knowledge or
> ability developed? If the Russians are doing this, on their own, why
> not focus on another task?
"This has nothing to do with the discussion" of "Where’s Venus
Waldo? / Brad Guth"
Is your PC or MAC Usenet/newsgroup reader malfunctioning?
~ BG
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> On Jan 11, 10:42 am, "HVAC" <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "arare litus" <litus.arare@gmaildotcom> wrote in message
>
> >news:7IydnSlzsscC1dfW...@giganews.com...
>
> > I've got an idea so we can have the wall with
> > ZERO taxpayer money. Here's the plan....
>
> > We mount Barret .50 cal sniper rifles at various
> > points along the wall. All are operated remotely.
>
> > Set up a web site where people can log on and
> > for a fee, operate the rifles.
>
> > Bingo! Another great idea from HVAC!!
>
> > I've got a million of em...
>
> So did Stalin, Hitler and their ZNR puppet-masters, so you're in good
> company.
>
> Why not genetically eliminate these problems to begin with?
>
> ~ BG
> *********************************
> I suppose we could start off with killing off all the Losers ... but then
> that would deprive us of any further GuthBall tidbits of wisdom ...
Just because you can't think outside of your trailer park, is no
reason to be such a nasty KKK redneck about this topic that has to do
with other intelligent life existing/coexisting on Venus. After all,
those tough Venusians could be ZNR rednecks just like yourself, and
you wouldn't want to mess that up, now would you.
~ BG
BradGuth
Unlike our uniform mainstream traditions of agency independence, or
rather formal intellectual policy/code encryptions and of not
connecting those dots of mostly public funded information, whereas
can at times manage to connect a few dots by way of deductively
interpreting from the best available science. Unfortunately, there’s
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/venus_earth_010702.html
“The volcanic activity on Venus is thought to be similar to the pre-
history geologic activity on Earth 2.5 billion years ago”
science that’s otherwise being excluded or obfuscated, perhaps because
it’s simply too telling as to what that toasty surface has to offer.
So, now we have Russia getting their next mission up to speed and
likely to place that lander near Guth Venus, if not deployed directly
into that Venusian tarmac.
The original GIF image file:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
~ BG
BradGuth
> "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote in message
>
> news:yeOdnQWl2rOwHdbW...@giganews.com...
>
> > *********************************
> > I suppose we could start off with killing off all the Losers ... but then
> > that would deprive us of any further GuthBall tidbits of wisdom ...
>
>
> "Tomorrow 50% chance of sulphuric acid rain, with
> temps climbing into the 900's... Bring your bathing
> suits, cause it's gonna be a hot one!"
Are all trailer park redneckers home schooled in dumbfounded-101, or
is it duh-101?
I don't think LeapFrog makes those kinds of pop-up books, but they
could be special ordered.
~ BG
BradGuth
>
> > ~ BG
>
> So, where is our Venusian Waldo hiding? (under or behind which
> geothermally heated rock?)
>
> The original GIF image file:
> http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
Unlike our uniform mainstream traditions of agency independence, or
rather formal intellectual policy/code of data encryptions so as to
remain as extra special, as well as applied transference as often as
it takes and that of simply not connecting those dots of mostly public
funded information, whereas instead we outsiders (the ones as having
been paying for everything) can at times manage to connect a few dots
by way of deductively interpreting from the best available science, in
a collaborative way that ‘s research constructive. Unfortunately,
there’s no peer worthy enough individual or group of sufficient
authority that seems to care, not even if it means avoiding another
9/11 or most any other sleeper cell intentions or individual threats,
much less if it means imposing any mainstream realization of other
intelligent forms of life existing/coexisting on Venus.
The laws of physics can not exclude or banish the planet Venus simply
because the mainstream mindset has been so faith-based insistent that
all planets evolved from our local stellar environment at essentially
the same time, and shortly thereafter all moons emerged as leftovers
pretty much exactly as we see them today.
For a little Venus confidence building, lets go back to those Russian
missions and the ongoing ESA mission before looking at the Magellan
that in many ways still hasn’t been surpassed, and take into account
several other US missions to Venus, whereas all of which reported that
the planet itself was simply much hotter than the surrounding
atmosphere that’s rather solar reflective and even nighttime cryogenic
at sufficient altitude, and of those mid latitudes being by far the
coldest. This doesn’t mean there’s ever acidic rain or much less snow
within the nighttime season, other that within those robust clouds.
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf
http://www.esa.int/images/Picture6_H.jpg
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=39432
“Venus is a big planet, being heated by radioactive elements in its
interior. It should have as much volcanic activity as Earth,” If any
planet should have more than its fair share of radioactive elements
that are most easily accessible, it’ll be Venus.
that location Earth is losing <125 mw/m2, or 63.75 terawatts that’s
roughly 148 times less global heat loss than Venus that’s smaller and
without any tidal geothermal benefit of having a moon. Adding in the
average volcanic and geothermal vented heat flux for Earth might
suggest 64<65 TW.
Without benefit of the OCO mission there’s still no quantified analogy
of any reasonably calibrated remote thermal instrumentation data of
sufficient resolution to go by, and so often it seems other Earth
science via satellite obtained data are simply to such an extent
incompatible with one another, so much so specialized or unique that
combining their science isn’t going to be nearly as conclusive as with
direct surface measurements, that even though extremely limited or
spotty can at least be easily replicated and thus peer approved as
matter of fact. In other words, much like our national security (DHS)
that can’t manage to connect those pesky dots of their own agencies
and collaborative groups that are supposed to be protecting us from
those Muslim extremists we keep pissing off, it seems we still don’t
have the necessary terrestrial data base as to how much geothermal
venting of gasses, fluids and solids per second is taking place at any
given time. In many ways we know more about the thermodynamics of
other planets and moons than we do about Earth.
There’s still ESA Venus EXPRESS with its supposedly disabled PFS
science that’s otherwise being intentionally excluded or obfuscated,
perhaps because it’s simply too telling as to what that toasty and
geologically active surface has to offer. So, now we have Russia
getting their next mission up to speed and likely to place that lander
near Guth Venus, if not deployed directly into that Venusian tarmac.
~ BG
arare litus
> "This has nothing to do with the discussion" of "Where�s Venus
> Waldo? / Brad Guth"
Inability to think coherently? Let's see if there is a repeat...
>> Should the United States follow that path, or implement a better plan?
>>
>> Using the above analogy, think of your question and answer the following
>> question:
>>
>> Other than satisfying your own personal interest, what is the benefit
>> for the rest of the people in real, tangible gains in knowledge or
>> ability developed? If the Russians are doing this, on their own, why
>> not focus on another task?
>
> "This has nothing to do with the discussion" of "Where�s Venus
> Waldo? / Brad Guth"
Yep. No surprise there, really. I now understand your problem. The
complete inability to follow a thought. You asked a question. I
answered with a 'thought question'. Therefore, this had everything
to do with this discussion. Since you can't think, this eludes you.
>
> Is your PC or MAC Usenet/newsgroup reader malfunctioning?
No, but the operator of yours is.
BradGuth
> On 1/11/2010 1:20 PM, BradGuth wrote:
>
> > Waldo? / Brad Guth"
>
> Inability to think coherently? Let's see if there is a repeat...
>
> >> Should the United States follow that path, or implement a better plan?
>
> >> Using the above analogy, think of your question and answer the following
> >> question:
>
> >> Other than satisfying your own personal interest, what is the benefit
> >> for the rest of the people in real, tangible gains in knowledge or
> >> ability developed? If the Russians are doing this, on their own, why
> >> not focus on another task?
>
> > Waldo? / Brad Guth"
>
> Yep. No surprise there, really. I now understand your problem. The
> complete inability to follow a thought. You asked a question. I
> answered with a 'thought question'. Therefore, this had everything
> to do with this discussion. Since you can't think, this eludes you.
>
>
> > Is your PC or MAC Usenet/newsgroup reader malfunctioning?
>
> No, but the operator of yours is.
Your carefully scripted transference and obfuscation as to the focus
and intent of this original topic at hand is noted. May another camel
of your mainstream status quo caravan fart in your face.
The matter of fact that you selectively don't believe in pictures
unless it's of your NASA approved infomercial eyecandy that's passive
and inert, is well understood. However, this topic was not about us
continually doing absolutely nothing positive or constructive
pertaining to our better understanding what the planet Venus has to
offer, and of interacting with whomever or whatever created those
unusually rational and logical sorts of such large scale
infrastructure.
You clearly have no appreciation or spunk for exploratory adventures
that could easily become worth trillions in profit per year. In your
case, just think of the nifty wartime economy (aka job security w/
benefits) if we could attack Venus because of their cache of WMD
(which doesn't actually have to exist).
~ BG
BradGuth
> Attention all 5th graders: Finding Waldo on Venus is easier said than
> done.
>
> This "IrfanView" utility is somewhat like being digital image potty
> trained, as well as being toddler approved and thus as good as any
> LeapFrog pop-up book can deliver. Not that any number of equal or
> better digital image methods for enlarging haven’t existed as is, but
> here's yet another old one that has been perked up so that not even a
> 5th grader is necessary to operate it. If you can click your mouse or
> one finger type with a keyboard, that's all the image processing
> expertise you'll ever need.
>
> http://www.irfanview.com/
>
> PhotoZoom Pro (mac and pc)
> http://www.benvista.com/main/content/content.php?page=downloads
>
> portion at 1:1, as I've previously instructed (roughly a 64 k image
> and perhaps another ten fold faster yet if using XP instead of Windows
> 7 (but that's not my fault).
>
> Of course Apple/MAC users are not without as good or better
> alternatives (PhotoZoom). However, this radar obtained image is just a
> with. So, a 10x enlargement is going to be relatively efficient and
> otherwise simplified, in that not even a 5th grader is required.
>
> Virtually all digital cameras and photo printers of any significance
> come packaged along with a basic photo resizing/enlarging and their
> automatic zoom filtering utility for delivering sufficient image
> detail results. Commercially or via government agencies, better zoom/
> either the necessary loot or having inside connections for using such.
>
> that large clover shaped reservoir that’s connected to that other
> other large scale infrastructure (including those rectangular rock
> quarry sites situated just north of that bridge). There’s at least 5
> gold stars, a million points and your name given full credits for
> finding Waldo. (team/class efforts are allowed, because there’s lots
> of credit to go around)
>
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Unlike our uniform mainstream traditions of agency independence, or
rather formal intellectual policy/code of data encryptions so as to
remain as something extra special, as well as applied transference as
often as it takes, and that usual tradition of obfuscation by simply
not connecting those dots of mostly public funded information, whereas
instead we outsiders (the ones as actually having been paying for
everything) can at times manage to connect a few of our public funded
dots by way of deductively interpreting from the best available
science, in a collaborative way that ‘s research constructive.
Unfortunately, there’s no peer worthy enough individual or group of
sufficient authority that seems to care, not even if it means avoiding
another 9/11 or most any other sleeper cell intentions or individual
threats, much less if it means imposing any mainstream realization of
other intelligent forms of life existing/coexisting on Venus that
would help explain those multiple large scale infrastructure items
that supposedly shouldn’t be there.
That composite GIF file is offering 36 averaged radar scans per 225
meter pixel. How much better pixel truth than that does anyone have
to offer?
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
Try cropping out a small 10% portion, such as from roughly up a third
and center, or resample/enlarge the entire GIF file to suit whatever
you consider good enough.
For a little image enlarging practice, here's lots more you can polish
your digital image processing skills upon. Magellan thumbnail images,
including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
The laws of physics simply can not exclude or banish the planet Venus
simply because the mainstream mindset has been so faith-based
insistent that all planets evolved from our local stellar environment
at essentially the same time, and shortly thereafter all moons emerged
as leftovers pretty much exactly as we see them today, and all such
items except Earth being without any trace of intelligent other life.
However, if one can manage interplanetary space travel, whereas then
whatever’s too hot, too cold or too toxic of an environment is simply
not a show stopper.
average of 20.5 w/m2, and that's only 9.43e15 watts (9430
terawatts.h). Obviously this represents that Venus is cooling off,
and it’s not that its thick layers of acidic clouds are not insulating
and thus restricting that process, or that the 2650 w/m2 of available
solar energy by day (~5% of which gets down to the surface) isn’t a
contributing factor.
I found a terrestrial measurement of sufficient solar and atmospheric
isolation, as taken of solid bedrock (~35 km thick, or 2.3 times the
global average of 15 km) that was situated under and otherwise
surrounded by a thick Antarctic layer of glacier ice, suggesting that
Earth is upon average losing <125 mw/m2, or entirely 63.75 terawatts,
and that’s roughly 148 times less global heat loss than Venus that’s
smaller and without any tidal geothermal benefit of having a moon.
Adding in the average volcanic and geothermal vented heat flux (mostly
contributed underwater) might suggest an all-inclusive heat out-flux
of 64 TW.h. Of course if we had that essential science platform at
Selene L1, in which case we’d have the whole Earth thermal out-flux
per hour as always known to within +/- 0.1 TW.h as of decades ago.
Without benefit of the OCO mission there’s still no quantified analogy
of any reasonably calibrated remote thermal instrumentation data of
sufficient resolution to go by, and so often it seems other Earth
science via satellite obtained data are simply to such an extent
incompatible with one another, so much so specialized or unique that
combining their science isn’t going to be nearly as conclusive as with
taking direct surface measurements, that even though extremely limited
BradGuth
>
> > Waldo? / Brad Guth"
>
> Inability to think coherently? Let's see if there is a repeat...
>
> >> Should the United States follow that path, or implement a better plan?
>
> >> Using the above analogy, think of your question and answer the following
> >> question:
>
> >> Other than satisfying your own personal interest, what is the benefit
> >> for the rest of the people in real, tangible gains in knowledge or
> >> ability developed? If the Russians are doing this, on their own, why
> >> not focus on another task?
>
> > Waldo? / Brad Guth"
>
> Yep. No surprise there, really. I now understand your problem. The
> complete inability to follow a thought. You asked a question. I
> answered with a 'thought question'. Therefore, this had everything
> to do with this discussion. Since you can't think, this eludes you.
>
>
> > Is your PC or MAC Usenet/newsgroup reader malfunctioning?
>
> No, but the operator of yours is.
Apparently for you there's no Venus Waldo, or anything other about the
planet Venus that stands out as anything except hot rocks and acidic
clouds that are always insurmountable.
How are you doing at merely dealing with hard numbers?
Outside of counting pixels of 36 radar looks or scans each of those
pixels that seem rather nicely aligned, as to look as though
representing something of intelligent and rational infrastructure,
there's also the terrific atmospheric environment itself and those
other extremely interesting natural items like that huge fluid arch
and those connected reservoirs to ponder, all of which involve hard
number of what physics and our best available science has to say.
Are you afraid to even look at whatever's perfectly natural about the
planet Venus?
~ BG
BradGuth
"Where's Waldo" is a silly old American pictographic or usually
cartoon game that's similar to how the public gets treated by their
hide-n-seek or need-to-know government and those many special
privileged agencies within.
http://www.findwaldo.com/
http://whereswaldo.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where's_Wally%3F
By rights there should be a Waldo on Venus, as most likely hiding
behind a hot rock or just somewhere near that large tarmac
infrastructure. However, since the original pixel resolution is so
poor, and even with terrific PhotoShop enlargements you'll have to
look at the bigger picture of what this Waldo seems to have created in
spite of it being so hot and nasty.
~ BG
BradGuth
cartoon game that's similar to how the public gets treated by their
hide-n-seek or need-to-know government and those many special
privileged agencies within.
http://www.findwaldo.com/
http://whereswaldo.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where's_Wally%3F
By rights there should be a Waldo on Venus, as most likely hiding
behind a hot rock or just somewhere near that large tarmac
infrastructure. However, since the original pixel resolution is so
poor, and even with terrific PhotoShop enlargements you'll have to
look at the bigger picture of what this Waldo seems to have created in
spite of it being so hot and nasty.
On Jan 9, 4:16 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/venus_earth_010702....
> “The volcanic activity on Venus is thought to be similar to the pre-
> history geologic activity on Earth 2.5 billion years ago”
> http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+diminutive+domes+of+Venus:+they+loo...
BradGuth
> “The volcanic activity on Venus is thought to be similar to the pre-
> history geologic activity on Earth 2.5 billion years ago”
There's more to Venus than given away by our NASA and their vast army
of brown-nosed minions and clowns, that have most everything at risk
by letting on as to how they screwed up (again).
All you need to do is to look for yourselves and give this one a fair
shot in the dark (so to speak), because radar imaging goes well beyond
CCD imaging and it works just as well in the dark as in the blazing
sun which doesn't actually illuminate all that well below those thick
and acidic clouds anyway.
~ BG
BradGuth
army of supposed wizards and their brown-nosed minions and clowns,
that have most everything at risk by letting on as to how they screwed
up (again).
All that you need to do is to honestly look for yourselves and give
this one a fair shot in the dark (so to speak), because radar imaging
goes well beyond CCD imaging and it works just as well in the dark as
in the blazing sun which doesn't actually illuminate all that well
below those thick and acidic clouds anyway.
BradGuth
> geothermally heated rock?)
>
> The original GIF image file:
> http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
Earth is cooling off and ever so slightly shrinking by perhaps <1mm/
year, though somewhat less cooling than possible is taking place due
to our having that 2e20 N/sec of tidal force from our moon(Selene) to
always contend with.
Islands of basalt crust are never entirely alone, as being essentially
100% packed up against other islands of crust. Trust me, that's a
very good thing, as opposed to dealing with any Warhol "lake of
fire" (vast open sores of magma would be a very bad sign, such as if
greater Yellowstone opened up or any portion of the ocean floor were
to sink into the magma due to whatever lack of buoyancy). Thus far
there's no indications that the thinner crust of Venus has any
disconnected or individual plates of its crust working against one
another, and it's cooling off much faster because there's no moon
stirring it up, as well as it's hardly spinning itself at 243 times
slower than Earth.
Question: is the outer crust of Earth expanding or contracting as it
cools?
The entire crust of Earth, as massive and dense as it is, solidifying
at roughly 1 mm/century, essentially floats on a substantial mantel of
<5.75 g/cm3 that's frosted with a fluid ocean of magma that's worth
~3.5 g/cm3. The average basalt crust density of perhaps <3.3 g/cm3
leaves us with >0.2 g/cm3 worth of buoyancy (let us say 0.25 g/cm3) to
work with, giving our crust roughly a volumetric 7.5% buoyancy factor.
The relatively thin crust of Earth (roughly less than a fifth that of
our moon) has also been badly broken and shifting about for quite some
time, and our trusty moon(Selene) is simply most responsible for
keeping it that way. However, the solidified basalt crust of our moon
is not broken, and forms a continuous outer sell like structure that
could be vapor tight enough to hold considerable internal pressure,
and conceivably even including brine/water as well as hosting crystal
populated geode pockets that could conceivably accommodate every human
on Earth, with volume to spare.
As the ocean basin crust gets closer to the density of 3.5 g/cm3, the
amount of buoyancy becomes neutral and just as likely to sink as swim
(so to speak). Fortunately this issue is never going to happen on our
moon(Selene).
How was Venus w/o moon made so differently than Earth?
It seems the mantel of Venus must be more dense and thus a little more
buoyancy worthy than ours, because the magma and thinner crust is so
much unlike that of our cooler terrestrial magma and thicker crust.
Of course the 90.5% gravity might have something to say about how the
thinner and much hotter Venusian crust stays afloat, but then that
kinda screws most everything up for understanding the planet Mercury
that isn't losing nearly as much of its geothermal heat.
Venus is giving off 20.5 w/m2, as opposed to Earth losing 125 mw/m2,
suggesting the crust of Venus being considerably thinner than any
known other planet or moon. Either that Venus is simply not as old as
Earth, or whatever's under the thin Venus crust is perhaps extensively
of heavier elements such as thorium and uranium, because it's simply
not the 5% of solar energy that's getting through those thick acidic
clouds that's keeping Venus so unusually hot from the inside out.
~ BG
BradGuth
Perhaps Waldo is hiding on our moon, where it's not nearly as hot.
Otherwise we've got a terrestrial Waldo that's playing hide-n-seek
most all the time. In either case, you have to look carefully at
images and try to interpret whatever looks out of place from the
natural surroundings, because it could be Waldo.
Earth is cooling off and ever so slightly shrinking by perhaps <1mm/
year, though somewhat less cooling than possible is taking place due
to our having that 2e20 N/sec of tidal binding force contributed from
our moon(Selene), as always morphing or modulating the entire litho
plus interior of Earth at near 16.9 m/s.
Terrestrial islands of basalt crust are never entirely alone, as being
essentially 100% packed up against other islands of crust. Trust me,
that's a very good thing, as opposed to dealing with any Warhol "lake
of fire" (vast open sores of magma would be a very bad sign, such as
if greater Yellowstone opened up or any portion of the ocean floor
were to sink into the layer of magma due to whatever lack of litho
buoyancy). Thus far there's no indications that the thinner crust of
Venus has any disconnected or individual plates of its crust working
against one another, and it's also cooling off much faster because
there's no moon stirring it up, as well as it's hardly spinning itself
at 243 times slower than Earth, and there's not much seasonal tilt, so
there little solar tide modulation to contend with.
Question: is the outer crust of Earth expanding or contracting as it
cools?
The entire crust of Earth, as massive and dense as it is, solidifying
at roughly 1 mm/century, essentially floats on a substantial mantel of
<5.75 g/cm3 that's frosted or lubricated with a highly fluid ocean of
magma that's worth ~3.5 g/cm3. The average basalt crust density of
perhaps <3.3 g/cm3 leaves us with >0.2 g/cm3 worth of buoyancy (let us
say 0.25 g/cm3) to work with, giving our crust roughly a volumetric
7.5% buoyancy factor.
The relatively thin crust of Earth (roughly less than a fifth that of
our moon) has also been badly broken and shifting about for quite some
time, and our trusty moon(Selene) is simply most responsible for
keeping it that way. However, the solidified basalt crust or litho of
our moon is not broken, and forms a continuous outer sell like
structure that could be vapor tight enough to hold considerable
internal pressure, and conceivably even including brine/water as well
as hosting crystal populated geode pockets that could conceivably
accommodate every human on Earth, with volume to spare.
As the relativly thin ocean basin crust of Earth gets closer to the
density of 3.5 g/cm3, the amount of its litho buoyancy becomes neutral
and just as likely to sink as swim (so to speak). Fortunately this
issue of plate tectonics is never going to happen on our moon(Selene),
and even the hot outer crust of Venus seems relatively stable even
though highly populated with volcanic and geothermal vents.
A more than century old question: How was the planet Venus w/o moon
and w/o capture made so differently than Earth?
It seems the mantel of Venus must be somewhat more dense and thus a
little more litho buoyancy worthy than ours, because the magma and
thinner crust is so much unlike that of our cooler terrestrial magma
and thicker crust, and all of those mountainous terrains of Venus had
to have been volcanic instead of plate tectonic formed. Of course the
90.5% gravity might have something to say about how the thinner and
much hotter Venusian crust stays afloat, but then that kinda screws
most everything up for our understanding the planet Mercury which
supposedly have an extremely thick litho and that's also w/o moon and
subsequently isn't losing nearly as much of its geothermal heat
because of its much thicker crust (10+ fold thicker than Earth's
litho) that's receiving an average day of <9.9 kw/m2 of solar influx
because of the thin atmosphere and there's never a cloud in that sky.
In other words, Venus just doesn't add up.
The "measured up-welling radiation"
"papers, published after the Pioneer Venus mission, confirm the fact
that the data indicate much more energy is being radiated from the
planet than is being received from the Sun."
http://firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf
"Measurements made from the orbiter outside the atmosphere, indicate
that Venus is radiating 153 +/-13 watts/meter2 while absorbing only
132 +/-13 watts/meter2 from the Sun, constituting a net outflow of 21
watts per square meter over the entire surface of the planet (6)."
"Discussing the net upward flux measured by the four probes that
sounded the atmosphere, the same paper states that below 13 km Venus
is radiating a net flux of between 15 and 30 watts/m2. In fact, a
large part of the data from the most sensitive infrared radiometer
(LIR) on the large probe, designed to detect visible and near
infrared, were discarded because, from the lower cloud layer (~ 48 km)
to the surface, “all channels produced signals that increased
unreasonably” (9)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
"The actual illumination of the surface is about 5,000–10,000 lux,
comparable to that of Earth during a dark, very cloudy day."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lux
"The peak of the luminosity function is at 555 nm (green); the eye's
visual system is more sensitive to light of this wavelength than any
other. For monochromatic light of this wavelength, the irradiance
needed to make one lux is minimum, at 1.464 mW/m2. That is, one
obtains 683.002 lux per W/m2 (or lumens per watt) at this wavelength."
It seems if multiple instruments at different times and of entirely
different missions are each interpreting the surface itself is
excessively radiating geothermal energy, whereas a NASA and faith-
based approved scientist is obligated to merely obfuscate/exclude
whatever thermal upwelling or outflux of surface energy upsets their
predisposition or mandate.
I am suggesting that Venus is most likely giving off an average of
20.5 w/m2 (within the mid ballpark of what our most objective
instruments suggest), as opposed to Earth losing 125 mw/m2 and that of
our moon <22 mw/m2(could just as easily be less than half that
amount), suggesting the crust of Venus being considerably thinner and/
or more thermally conductive than any known other planet or moon, as
well as suggesting either that Venus is simply not as old as Earth, or
whatever's under that thin Venus litho is perhaps extensively of
heavier elements such as thorium and uranium, because it's simply not
the 5% of solar energy (<133 w/m2 by day) that's getting through those
thick acidic clouds that's keeping the surface of Venus so unusually
hot from the inside out, and of course this isn't excluding greenhouse
heating on top of whatever that surface of thermal upwelling is
radiating (including active geothermal vents and volcanism that are
not in short supply). On the other hand, the interior of our unusual
moon(Selene) with its thick litho seems as dead or worse than Mars.
The Venus EXPRESS mission was supposed to thoroughly quantify this
thermal imbalance (net up-welling), however their public funded PFS
instrument data remains private (supposedly as non-functioning), so
that to date there's still nothing of any improvements or revisions
over previous missions that obviously don't wish to be made to look
inadequate or bogus.
~ BG
Hagar
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:57b32a9a-a4be-44ef...@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 12, 10:16 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 1:02 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So, where is our Venusian Waldo hiding? (under or behind which
> > geothermally heated rock?)
>
> > The original GIF image file:
> > http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
Still hung up on that same old picture ...
Would look cool on the wall of the padded cell that should be
your permanent home.
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You obviously haven't any decent pictures to offer. Are you just
terribly unhappy about that?
You can't even manage to enlarge a basic monochrome digital image, I
mean how pathetic is that?
You also don't believe in those regular laws of physics or in
geology. Is that supposed to also be my fault?
If you obfuscated/excluded any more science about the planet Venus,
you'd have to exclude the entire planet.
~ BG
BradGuth
Venus isn't short of water, as is our moon(Selene) and Mars.
K12s should check out those thick clouds that trap and hold the vast
bulk of Venus water.
~ BG
BradGuth
K).
Otherwise we've got a Venusian Waldo that's playing hide-n-seek most
all the time. In either case, you have to look carefully at images
and try to interpret whatever looks out of place from the natural
surroundings, because it could be Waldo.
Earth is cooling off and ever so slightly shrinking by perhaps <1mm/
year, though somewhat less cooling than possible is taking place due
to our having that 2e20 N/sec of tidal binding force contributed from
our moon(Selene), as always morphing or modulating the entire
lithosphere plus interior of Earth at near 16.9 m/s.
Terrestrial islands of basalt crust are never entirely alone, as being
essentially 100% packed up against other islands of crust. Trust me,
that's a very good thing, as opposed to dealing with any Warhol "lake
of fire" (vast open sores of magma would be a very bad sign, such as
if greater Yellowstone opened up or any portion of the ocean floor
were to sink into the layer of magma due to whatever lack of
lithosphere buoyancy). Thus far there's no indications that the
thinner crust of Venus has any disconnected or individual plates of
its crust working against one another, and it's also cooling off much
faster because there's no moon stirring it up, as well as it's hardly
spinning itself at 243 times slower than Earth, and there's not much
seasonal tilt, so there little solar tide modulation to contend with.
Question: is the outer crust of Earth expanding or contracting as it
cools?
The entire crust of Earth, as massive and dense as it is, solidifying
itself at roughly 1 mm/century, essentially floats on a substantial
mantel of <5.75 g/cm3 that's frosted or lubricated with a highly fluid
ocean of magma that's worth ~3.5 g/cm3. The average basalt crust
density of perhaps <3.3 g/cm3 leaves us with >0.2 g/cm3 worth of
buoyancy (let us say 0.25 g/cm3) to work with, giving our crust
roughly a volumetric 7.5% buoyancy factor.
The relatively thin crust of Earth (roughly less than a fifth that of
our moon) has also been badly broken and shifting about for quite some
time, and our trusty moon(Selene) is simply most responsible for
keeping it that way. However, the solidified basalt crust or litho of
our moon is not broken, and forms a continuous outer sell like
structure that could be vapor tight enough to hold considerable
internal pressure, and conceivably even including brine/water as well
as hosting crystal populated geode pockets that could conceivably
accommodate every human on Earth, with volume to spare.
As the relativly thin ocean basin crust of Earth gets closer to the
density of 3.5 g/cm3, the amount of its litho buoyancy becomes neutral
and just as likely to sink as swim (so to speak). Fortunately, this
issue of plate tectonics is never going to happen on our moon(Selene),
and even the hot outer crust of Venus seems relatively stable even
though highly populated with volcanic and geothermal vents.
A more than century old question: How was the planet Venus w/o moon
and w/o capture made so differently than Earth?
It seems the mantel of Venus must be somewhat more dense and thus a
little more litho buoyancy worthy than ours, because the magma and
thinner crust is so much unlike that of our cooler terrestrial magma
and thicker crust, and all of those mountainous terrains of Venus had
to have been volcanic instead of plate tectonic formed. Of course the
90.5% gravity might have something to say about how the thinner and
much hotter Venusian crust stays afloat, but then that kinda screws
I am merely suggesting that Venus is most likely giving off an average
of 20.5 w/m2 (within the mid ballpark of what our most objective
instruments suggest), as opposed to Earth losing 125 mw/m2 and that of
our moon <22 mw/m2(could just as easily be less than half that
amount), suggesting the crust of Venus being considerably thinner and/
or more thermally conductive than any known other planet or moon, as
well as suggesting either that Venus is simply not as old as Earth, or
whatever's under that thin Venus litho is perhaps extensively of
heavier elements such as thorium and uranium, because it's simply not
the 5% of solar energy (<133 w/m2 by day) that's getting through those
thick acidic clouds that's keeping the surface of Venus so unusually
hot from the inside out, and of course this isn't excluding greenhouse
heating on top of whatever that surface of thermal upwelling is
radiating (including active geothermal vents and volcanism that are
not in short supply). On the other hand, the interior of our unusual
moon(Selene) with its thick lithosphere seems as dead or worse than
Mars.
The Venus EXPRESS mission was supposed to thoroughly quantify this
thermal imbalance (net up-welling), however their public funded PFS
instrument data remains private (supposedly as non-functioning), so
that to date there's still nothing of any significant improvements or
revisions over previous missions that obviously don't wish to be made
to look inadequate or bogus. However, interpreting the newest data in
a constructive way is telling us a different story about those
Venusian surface and atmospheric environments.
~ BG
BradGuth
meter pixel. How much better pixel truth than that does anyone have
to offer?
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
Try cropping out a small 10% portion, such as from roughly up a third
and center, or resample/enlarge the entire GIF file to suit whatever
you consider good enough.
For a little image enlarging practice, here's lots more you can polish
your digital image processing skills upon. Magellan thumbnail images,
including the mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
The laws of physics simply can not exclude or banish the planet Venus
simply because the mainstream mindset has been so faith-based
insistent that all planets evolved from our local stellar environment
at essentially the same time, and shortly thereafter all moons emerged
as leftovers pretty much exactly as we see them today, and all such
items except Earth being without any trace of intelligent other life.
However, if one can manage interplanetary space travel, whereas then
whatever’s too hot, too cold or too toxic of an environment is simply
not a show stopper.
For a little Venus confidence building, lets go back to those Russian
missions and the ongoing ESA mission before looking at the Magellan
that in many ways still hasn’t been surpassed, and take into account
several other US missions to Venus, whereas all of which reported that
the planet itself was simply much hotter than the surrounding
atmosphere that’s rather solar reflective and even nighttime cryogenic
at sufficient altitude, and of those mid latitudes being by far the
coldest. This doesn’t mean there’s ever acidic rain or much less snow
within the nighttime season, other that within those robust clouds.
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf
http://www.esa.int/images/Picture6_H.jpg
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=39432
“Venus is a big planet, being heated by radioactive elements in its
interior. It should have as much volcanic activity as Earth,” If any
planet should have more than its fair share of radioactive elements
that are most easily accessible, it’ll be Venus.
How many thousand active geothermal vents and/or volcanic gas/lava/mud
hot spots are still actively spewing and venting, and at how many
superheated m3 or tonnes per second? (remember that CO2 at such
geothermal venting pressure is easily worth <250 kg/m3, and then
there’s loads of S8 worth <2e3 kg/m3 in its fluid form, as equally
laced with H2O that’s obviously providing an acidic molecular vapor
combination that’s sufficiently buoyant within that Venusian
atmosphere)
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/venus_earth_010702.html
“The volcanic activity on Venus is thought to be similar to the pre-
history geologic activity on Earth 2.5 billion years ago”
“The diminutive domes of Venus: they look volcanic and may number in
the millions.”
“The domes are more than mere curiosities. If in fact they are still
active and releasing magma, they will confirm a belief of many
planetary scientists, including what Arvidson calls a majority of the
Magellan team: that volcanic Venus did not cool down in a
"geologically recent" past millions of years ago, but continues to
erupt to this day.”
With any substantial planet that’s similar enough to Earth, shouldn't
this nearly objective consideration be well in excess of offering at
least a thousand geothermal tonnes per second, if not an average as
great as easily spewing and venting up to an all-inclusive million of
those hot tonnes per second, or at the very least per hour?
By several independent accounts, Venus has been losing roughly an
average of 20.5 w/m2, and that's only 9.43e15 watts (9430
terawatts.h). Obviously this represents that Venus is cooling off,
and it’s not that its thick layers of acidic clouds are not insulating
and thus restricting that process, or that the 2650 w/m2 of available
solar energy by day (~5% of which gets down to the surface) isn’t a
contributing factor.
I found a terrestrial measurement of sufficient solar and atmospheric
isolation, as taken of solid bedrock (~35 km thick, or 2.3 times the
global average of 15 km) that was situated under and otherwise
surrounded by a thick Antarctic layer of glacier ice, suggesting that
Earth is upon average losing <125 mw/m2, or entirely 63.75 terawatts,
and that’s roughly 148 times less global heat loss than Venus that’s
smaller and without any tidal geothermal benefit of having a moon.
Adding in the average volcanic and geothermal vented heat flux (mostly
contributed underwater) might suggest an all-inclusive heat out-flux
of 64 TW.h. Of course if we had that essential science platform at
Selene L1, in which case we’d have the whole Earth thermal out-flux
per hour as always known to within +/- 0.1 TW.h as of decades ago.
Without benefit of the OCO mission there’s still no quantified analogy
of any reasonably calibrated remote thermal instrumentation data of
sufficient resolution to go by, and so often it seems other Earth
science via satellite obtained data are simply to such an extent
incompatible with one another, so much so specialized or unique that
combining their science isn’t going to be nearly as conclusive as with
taking direct surface measurements, that even though extremely limited
or spotty can at least be easily replicated and thus peer approved as
matter of fact. In other words, much like our national security (DHS)
that can’t manage to connect those pesky dots of their own agencies
and collaborative groups that are supposed to be protecting us from
those Muslim extremists we keep pissing off, it seems we still don’t
have the necessary terrestrial data base as to how much geothermal
venting of gasses, fluids and solids per second is taking place at any
given time. In many ways we know more about the thermodynamics of
other planets and moons than we do about Earth.
There’s still ESA Venus EXPRESS with its supposedly disabled PFS
science that’s otherwise being intentionally excluded or obfuscated,
perhaps because it’s simply too telling as to what that toasty and
geologically active surface has to offer. So, now we have Russia
getting their next mission up to speed and likely to place that lander
near Guth Venus, if not deployed directly into that Venusian tarmac.
Attention all 5th graders: Finding Waldo on Venus is easier said than
done.
This "IrfanView" utility is somewhat like being digital image potty
trained, as well as being toddler approved and thus as good as any
LeapFrog pop-up book can deliver. Not that any number of equal or
better digital image methods for enlarging haven’t existed as is, but
here's yet another old one that has been perked up so that not even a
5th grader is necessary to operate it. If you can click your mouse or
one finger type with a keyboard, that's all the image processing
expertise you'll ever need.
Try to remember that most of what I’ve interpreted as other than
natural is 450+ meters per at least one given dimension. So, it’s all
seriously big stuff, and hopefully our Venus Waldo is equally large.
IrfanView
http://www.irfanview.com/
PhotoZoom Pro (mac and pc)
http://www.benvista.com/main/content/content.php?page=downloads
PhotoCleaner
http://www.photocleaner.com/download.html
The original GIF image file:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
If you’d care to first crop out and save the most interesting 10%
portion at 1:1, as I've previously instructed (roughly a 64 k image
file), whereas the automated enlargement or zoom w/resample process
runs ten fold faster, and perhaps another ten fold faster yet if using
XP instead of Windows 7 (but that's not my fault).
Of course Apple/MAC users are not without as good or better
alternatives (PhotoZoom). However, this radar obtained image is just
your basic monochrome GIF file of 651 k, of not all that many pixels
to begin with. So, a 10x enlargement is going to be relatively
efficient and otherwise simplified, in that not even the expertise of
Hagar
Hey, fruitloops, read this and then STFO about Venus:
http://nineplanets.org/venus.html