The Secret Radar Pixels of Venus / by Brad Guth
BradGuth
block that sound of my nifty horn, because I’ll gladly return the warm
and fuzzy favor with all the love and affection that I can muster.
The radar obtained images that I’ve utilized are not bogus or eligible
for the kinds of sloppy pixels that are so easily distorted and/or
misinterpreted when obtained via the visible spectrum. If you don’t
understand this, then there no need of your contributions unless
there’s an obvious basis of positive and thus constructive intent to
behold.
Perhaps we should have had our SEC approved Ponzi Madoff put in
charge of funding our NASA, as well as our crack Ponzi certified SEC
placed in charge of fondling our GAO, in as much as there certainly
wouldn't have been any shortage of private and public loot to blow on
Venus or most any other exploratory mission. Possibly even along with
having William Mook in charge of running NASA, whereas we'd have
spendy missions going off in most every imaginable which way but lose
(so to speak), including our Selene/moon and for utilizing its L1, as
well as having the planet Venus and its L2 fully under our command.
At the time and shortly after this Magellan mission mapping Venus in
such detail, there was no specific funding or mandate for identifying
anything the least bit artificial or ET worthy. Instead, just the
natural terrain and atmospheric issues were getting all the attention
and rights to publish those interpretations of the selected few.
Thumbnail images, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
PhotoZoom, PhotoCleaner, Imagener or even Adobe PhotoShop is good
enough. Now, you can either work the entire image at increased
resolution, or it's best to crop out 10% of the following GIF file
(crop from roughly up a third and center) and either convert it to
monochrome (image mode>grayscale) GIF, and/or save this as is in the
uncompressed (maximum) JPG format. Your version of PhotoShop may not
offer filers in the original GIF color format (no problem because
there really is no color in radar imaging anyway), so drop the GIF
color attribute and you're good to go for serious enlarging (3x to 5x
is more than good enough).
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
Now you’ll need to enlarge that little monochrome GIF or JPEG 1:1
portion of this 225 m/pixel image, by merely resampling/enlarging at
not greater than 5x (by changing the 72 dpi to 360 dpi).
If using PhotoShop, be certain to also apply the primary image sharpen
filter "unsharp mask" (150, 3, 0 or trial and error it until you get
whatever seems clear but not so over-done that everything gets
distorted). If you like a little added contrast doesn’t hurt, but
don’t over do it because you can lose more detail than you gain.
Take your sweet time looking this extremely interesting area over, by
way of zooming in and out and then perhaps you should tell me, out of
all the expected hot rock and perfectly natural looking terrain that’s
supposed to be so entirely unlivable, what else in pixel patterns do
you interpret?
That's my wee bit simplified process of digital image enlarging, as it
takes some practice in order to master some of the PhotoShop finer
points of enlarging and filtering in order to get the best undistorted
enlargement results, all of which can of course be reversed and redone
as often as you like, because the original 225 m/pixel composite image
of 36 radar looks per pixel is always available.
The really good news, in my deductive observationology interpretation,
there has been some kind of other intelligent life existing/coexisting
on Venus. However, perhaps the bad news is, they could be a whole lot
better evolved and even smarter than either of us.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
UncleEnglish
Excellent stuff, Brad. I also like Richard Hoagland's persistence re
Mars.
--
Yrs,
John.
BradGuth
Persistence is putting it mildly. You have to wear a full-body flack
suit along with backwards looking radar for detecting those mainstream
status quo cruise missiles that have your name on them.
Just to suggest there's any possibility of any kind of off-world
microbial intelligence is sacrilegious and usually antisemitic to
boot, god and heaven almighty forbid if it's of anything from within
our Goldilocks solar system.
I too agree that once upon a time the planet Mars offered a viable
habitat, as well as I'd argue tooth and nail on behalf of our icy
proto-moon (aka Selene) has having provided itself as an interstellar
means of transport (possibly derived from the Sirius star/solar system
that has somewhat recently become anything but Goldilocks worthy).
~ BG
Will in New Haven
Why didn't you repeat your stupid name across the bottom of this post
like you usually do, you fucking loon?
Selene my ass.
Cordially as always
--
Will in New Haven
BradGuth
Hagar
ass, again. The reason Venus is not on anyone's favorite list of places to
visit is because the longest any probe sent to the surface has survived is
about 15 minutes or so. Compare that to the Mars rovers. I rest my case.
You really should talk to someone about this Venus fetish. I bet WarSwine,
LipFlapper or ChuckWeasel could help you out there, since they are just as
warped as you and are well versed in the topic of "Illusions of Grandeur"..
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d719f076-1f36-4d66...@v35g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
UncleEnglish
> You're not tooting your horn, GuthBall, but you're blowing it out of your
> ass, again. The reason Venus is not on anyone's favorite list of places to
> visit is because the longest any probe sent to the surface has survived is
> about 15 minutes or so. Compare that to the Mars rovers. I rest my case.
> You really should talk to someone about this Venus fetish. I bet WarSwine,
> LipFlapper or ChuckWeasel could help you out there, since they are just as
> warped as you and are well versed in the topic of "Illusions of Grandeur"..
>
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA09/venus297.php
Silly enough to dismiss Venusian life origins? To be sure, we are, yet
inhospitable as its today climate may be, things were not always that
way.
How parochial of us!
--
foolsrushin.
BradGuth
Goldilocks Hagar is rather limited as to the wet and/or too dry or too
hot/cold kind of toxic polluted environment that suits a Zionist Nazi,
thus Eden/Earth is about it. Apparently other intelligent life can
only survive upon a given planet or moon in the nude, and above most
everything else, of whatever applied technology (including anything
from Earth) simply isn't allowed.
Notice how this topic of off-world intelligent other life associated
with the planet Venus tens to always attract our resident rabbi Saul
Levy, like so much smelly/sweet fly paper.
btw, you can always piss them bad guys off by giving my stuff lots of
them nifty gold stars. By all means, they absolutely hate that.
~ BG
BradGuth
processing. If you can help, don't be shy.
~ BG
BradGuth
try to block that sound of my nifty horn, because I’ll gladly return
the warm and fuzzy favor with all the love and affection that I can
processing and otherwise the kinds of physics and science that are
compatible with the complex Venus environment, because it is not
nearly as insurmountable as you might think.
The radar obtained images that I’ve utilized are not the least bit
bogus or eligible for the kinds of sloppy pixels that are so easily
distorted and/or misinterpreted when obtained via the visible
spectrum. If you don’t understand this fundamental difference, then
perhaps there’s no need of your contributions unless you can still
manage to offer an obvious basis of positive and thus constructive
intent to behold about the planet Venus. Being negative or
obfuscating in order to suit the mainstream status quo is not any part
of this topic, because if I wanted to be continually misinformed or
directly lied to, I’d be directing this topic at our previous federal
and civil service administrations.
-
Perhaps we should have had our SEC approved Ponzi Madoff put in
charge of funding our NASA, as well as our crack Ponzi certified SEC
placed in charge of fondling our GAO, in as much as there certainly
wouldn't have been any shortage of private and public loot to blow on
Venus or most any other exploratory mission. Possibly even along with
having our resident wizard of Oz, William Mook in charge of running
NASA, whereas we'd have those spendy missions going off in most every
imaginable which way but lose (so to speak), including our Selene/moon
and for utilizing its L1, as well as having the planet Venus and its
L2 fully under our command. Unfortunately, the informative folks like
Mook only believe in each and every word published by any government
agency, as though each bit of information being the one and only word
of God, and therefore the past record of 24 or more hours simply can’t
ever be revised (this is called the 24HSL [24 hour statute of
limitations] that we all get to live with)
-
At the time and shortly after this impressive Magellan mission of
mapping Venus in such detail, there was no specific funding or mandate/
directive for identifying anything the least bit artificial or ET
worthy. Instead, just the natural terrain and atmospheric issues were
getting all the attention and rights as to publish those
interpretations from the selected few given this authority and of
course public funding.
Thumbnail images, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
PhotoZoom, PhotoCleaner, Imagener or even Adobe PhotoShop is good
enough. You can either work the entire image at increased resolution,
or it's best to crop out 10% of the following GIF file (crop from
roughly up a third and center) and either convert it to monochrome
(image mode>grayscale) GIF, and/or save this 1:1 portion as is in the
uncompressed (maximum uncompressed) JPG format. Your version of
PhotoShop may not offer filers in the original GIF color format (no
problem because there really is no color in radar imaging anyway), so
drop the GIF color attribute and you're good to go for serious
enlarging (3x to 5x is more than good enough) of this following link.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
Now you’ll need to enlarge that little monochrome GIF or JPEG 1:1
portion of this 225 m/pixel image, by merely resampling/enlarging at
not greater than 5x (by changing the 72 dpi to 360 dpi). If this is
too much bother, I’ll provide the enlarged version without modifying
one pixel.
If using PhotoShop, be certain to also apply the primary image sharpen
filter "unsharp mask" (150, 3, 0 or trial and error this option until
you get whatever seems clear but not so over-done that everything gets
distorted). If you like, a little added contrast doesn’t hurt, but
again don’t over do it because you can start losing more detail than
you gain.
Take your sweet time at looking this extremely interesting area over,
by way of zooming in and out and then perhaps you should tell me, out
of all the expected surface of hot rock and perfectly natural looking
terrain that’s supposed to be so entirely unlivable, what else in
pixel patterns do you interpret?
That's my wee bit simplified process of digital image enlarging and
the start of my observationology process, as it takes some practice in
order to master some of the PhotoShop finer points of enlarging and
filtering in order to get the best undistorted enlargement results,
all of which can of course be reversed and/or redone as often as you
like, because the original 225 m/pixel composite image of 36 radar
looks per pixel is always available.
The really good news, in my deductive observationology interpretation,
there has been some kind of other intelligent life existing/coexisting
on Venus. This may in fact be much easier said than done, however,
perhaps the bad news is even more interesting, as this operation could
be an imported team effort that’s a whole lot better evolved and even
smarter than either of us combined.
The other point I’m so often making; the planet Venus is likely a
very hot geological and mineralogy pick, or simply on the short list
if you’re an intelligent ET that’s out and about looking for the best
and easiest source of raw elements. With some limited 5th grade or
better imagination, and sticking within the regular laws of physics,
you can actually accomplish quite a lot from such a newish planet such
as Venus.
BradGuth
To deductively interpret radar pixels is also to interpret the physics
and best available science, on behalf of understanding the complex
environment. Having a negative biased attitude or obfuscating policy
does only harm and degrades the entire field of off-world
explorations. So, in spite of what this Usenet/newsgroup usually
tries to make taboo or worse, instead I’ve looked and interpreted with
an open mindset at the possibilities of what a planet like Venus has
to offer, and it’s not all bad.
The lower 25 km atmosphere of Venus is in fact downright toasty and
nearly crystal dry, except wherever directly over geothermal or
volcanic vents. This mostly CO2 saturated atmosphere will in fact
absorb, convection transfer and even directly radiate certain channels
of IR, and otherwise remain transparent throughout most of the visible
and UV spectrum.
However, a substantially cloudy wet form of CO2 is also going to
become a highly reflective blanket, keeping the bulk of the solar
visible to near/shortwave IR, and otherwise most other photons
filtered or extensively penetration limited. Longwave IR can still
manage to get through, but our passive sun doesn't exactly offer a
great deal of its spectrum as longwave IR to start with, although the
limited amount of solar longwave IR as secondary/recoil emitted back
from the mostly geothermal driven surface of Venus can still be
detected through even those extremely thick vapor/clouded layers of
carbonic and sulfuric acid combined with a thin S8 layer.
http://ess.geology.ufl.edu/ess/Notes/040-Sun/spectrum.GIF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/apr/space-plants/light-graph-875.jpg
http://eetd.lbl.gov/coolroof/SPECTRUM.gif
The planet Venus has a great deal of cloudy wet (also meaning acidic)
and even the upper nighttime icy forms of this acidic CO2+H2O=H2CO3
(Carbonic acid) and H2So4 (Sulfuric acid), along with a somewhat lower
cozy atmospheric blanket or dynamic sandwich layer of the robust S8
element for good measure. The planet Venus is still quite
geologically active from the inside out, and as such doesn't get all
that much solar energy to its extensively toasty dry but otherwise
relatively active venting and geothermal radiating surface of 20.5 w/
m2 (Earth being a fairly mild 125 mw/m2 + volcanic and geothermal
ventings) above the solar thermal energy balance. In other words and
unlike Earth, Venus is not getting hotter, whereas instead Venus has
been gradually cooling off.
“Mysterious Haze Found on Venus”
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080222-venus-haze.html
CO2+H2O=H2CO3 (Carbonic acid), and H2SO4 (Sulfuric acid) each
involve large volumes and subsequent teratonnes of h2o2. (at 4.8e20
kg, if merely 0.1% of which being h2o amounts to 4.8e17 kg = 480
teratonnes as water, and even if this were limited to the 25<75 km of
haze and clouds would still represent many teratonnes of easily
accessible acidic water that a 5th grader could distil into pure h2o)
Where's the big mystery?
UV attenuation could be most anything from mathane to volcanic
vaporized basalt or even h2o2. There's also an thin upper layer of
just O2 that has been documented for a good decade.
“NASA may send fleet of spacecraft to Venus”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16797-nasa-may-send-fleet-of-spacecraft-to-venus.html
What’s badly needed is a combined effort of better radar mapping plus
PFS imaging that’ll get this resolution down to a few meters. A gamma
spectrometry instrument would also become necessary in order to
identify and quantify the raw elements of the Venus atmosphere and
surface. But that’s mostly old hat physics and science that’s sort of
off the shelf these days.
Too bad we still do not have Venus L2 as our relatively cool outpost/
gateway, on behalf of getting ourselves and multiple probes
efficiently to/from the planet Venus. But then we also do not have
any local outpost/gateway within the Earth-moon L1 (aka Selene L1).
Perhaps such nifty gravity libration locations for our science and
OASIS supply depots are simply too complex for accommodating anything
that we know of, though Arthur C Clarke, myself and a few others can’t
hardly believe this being the case, and the amounts of station-keeping
energy plus resupply are certainly not a technology or logistics
problem.
Besides configuring a Clarke Station as our next outpost, there’s also
the inflatable POOFs by Robert Bigelow that could provide as much
volumetric accommodations at Venus L2 as necessary. For this kind of
interplanetary adventure, we simply need to keep an open mindset and
to imagine what’s possible, although these powerfully computerized
days we can also virtually simulate and validate every last detail.
~ BG
BradGuth
scary about the planet Venus, because it's still as taboo/
nondisclosure rated as our Selene/moon and especially that of Selene
L1.
Too bad there’s still no mainstream focus on how much mass Earth is
losing. Of course faith-based cabals and Big Energy cartels could
each care less, but never quite enough less to keep their brown-nosed
spooks and moles from screwing with and pouncing upon any topics or
methods of others obtaining objective science. It’s as though there’s
simply too much bad news that needs to get banished, or at least
mainstream obfuscated to death and/or made entirely taboo/
nondisclosure rated.
The best resolution and even the dynamic range from ISRO sucks.
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/04/03/latest-images-from-chandrayaan-1/
Oddly there’s still equal or better resolution images via them old
Apollo analog metric mapping images, even as poorly scanned into
digital format none the less.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/metric/
However, now there’s atmospheric bacteria surviving at 41 km above
Earth. “ISRO makes intriguing "extraterrestrial" life discovery --
let's hope they're on our side!”
http://www.worldnewsforum.net/computers-space-technology-gaming/3530-ndian-space-researchers-claim-extraterrestrial-life-discovery.html
Discovery of New Microorganisms in the Stratosphere
http://www.isro.org/pressrelease/Mar16_2009.htm
By rights, this means there should be Mars microbes, and/or at least
spores.
Notice how all of the American media has been instructed/warned not to
convey anything positive or otherwise constrictive about ISRO,
obviously it’s because ISRO at less than ten cents on the dollar is
making our NASA and DARPA look entirely pathetic, if not bogus.
Instead of being continually outdone by India, Japan and even China,
the Selene/moon L1 could have been all ours as of 4 decades ago.
In addition to obtaining far superior Earth, sun and moon science, as
accomplished from Selene L1, with an optical telephoto lens or
sufficient telescope could have accomplished a whole lot better job
than one meter per pixel, along with a DR of at least 32 DB, and with
multiple narrow bandpass filters to boot. In other words, we wouldn't
have needed OCO or a dozen other spendy satellite obtained science
missions, plus so much other could have been accomplished from Selene
L1.
~ BG
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16797-nasa-may-send-fleet-of-sp...
Warhol
http://www.aad.gov.au/asset/webcams/mawson/default.asp
The only thing I remember coming from the sky in Daniel and
Revelations is a great mountain that crashes into the sea. The one in
Daniel ´covers the earth´ as the Kingdom of God. The one in
Revelations simply destroys a third of the life in the oceans.
On Apr 5, 6:52 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Still no good takers on this topic. Must be something pretty dark and
> scary about the planetVenus, because it's still as taboo/
> nondisclosure rated as our Selene/moon and especially that of Selene
> L1.
>
> Too bad there’s still no mainstream focus on how much mass Earth is
> losing. Of course faith-based cabals and Big Energy cartels could
> each care less, but never quite enough less to keep their brown-nosed
> spooks and moles from screwing with and pouncing upon any topics or
> methods of others obtaining objective science. It’s as though there’s
> simply too much bad news that needs to get banished, or at least
> mainstream obfuscated to death and/or made entirely taboo/
> nondisclosure rated.
>
> The best resolution and even the dynamic range from ISRO sucks.
> http://www.universetoday.com/2009/04/03/latest-images-from-chandrayaa...
> Oddly there’s still equal or better resolution images via them old
> Apollo analog metric mapping images, even as poorly scanned into
> digital format none the less.
> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/metric/
>
> However, now there’s atmospheric bacteria surviving at 41 km above
> Earth. “ISRO makes intriguing "extraterrestrial" life discovery --
> let's hope they're on our side!”
> http://www.worldnewsforum.net/computers-space-technology-gaming/3530-...
> > >Venusor most any other exploratory mission. Possibly even along with
> > > having William Mook in charge of running NASA, whereas we'd have
> > > spendy missions going off in most every imaginable which way but lose
> > > (so to speak), including our Selene/moon and for utilizing its L1, as
> > > well as having the planetVenusand its L2 fully under our command.
> > > onVenus. However, perhaps the bad news is, they could be a whole lot
> > > better evolved and even smarter than either of us.
>
> > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
>
> > To deductively interpret radar pixels is also to interpret the physics
> > and best available science, on behalf of understanding the complex
> > environment. Having a negative biased attitude or obfuscating policy
> > does only harm and degrades the entire field of off-world
> > explorations. So, in spite of what this Usenet/newsgroup usually
> > tries to make taboo or worse, instead I’ve looked and interpreted with
> > an open mindset at the possibilities of what a planet likeVenushas
> > to offer, and it’s not all bad.
>
> > The lower 25 km atmosphere ofVenusis in fact downright toasty and
> > nearly crystal dry, except wherever directly over geothermal or
> > volcanic vents. This mostly CO2 saturated atmosphere will in fact
> > absorb, convection transfer and even directly radiate certain channels
> > of IR, and otherwise remain transparent throughout most of the visible
> > and UV spectrum.
>
> > However, a substantially cloudy wet form of CO2 is also going to
> > become a highly reflective blanket, keeping the bulk of the solar
> > visible to near/shortwave IR, and otherwise most other photons
> > filtered or extensively penetration limited. Longwave IR can still
> > manage to get through, but our passive sun doesn't exactly offer a
> > great deal of its spectrum as longwave IR to start with, although the
> > limited amount of solar longwave IR as secondary/recoil emitted back
> > from the mostly geothermal driven surface ofVenuscan still be
> > detected through even those extremely thick vapor/clouded layers of
> > carbonic and sulfuric acid combined with a thin S8 layer.
>
> > http://ess.geology.ufl.edu/ess/Notes/040-Sun/spectrum.GIF
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation
> > http://discovermagazine.com/2007/apr/space-plants/light-graph-875.jpg
> > http://eetd.lbl.gov/coolroof/SPECTRUM.gif
>
> > The planetVenushas a great deal of cloudy wet (also meaning acidic)
> > and even the upper nighttime icy forms of this acidic CO2+H2O=H2CO3
> > (Carbonic acid) and H2So4 (Sulfuric acid), along with a somewhat lower
> > cozy atmospheric blanket or dynamic sandwich layer of the robust S8
> > element for good measure. The planetVenusis still quite
> > geologically active from the inside out, and as such doesn't get all
> > that much solar energy to its extensively toasty dry but otherwise
> > relatively active venting and geothermal radiating surface of 20.5 w/
> > m2 (Earth being a fairly mild 125 mw/m2 + volcanic and geothermal
> > ventings) above the solar thermal energy balance. In other words and
> > unlike Earth,Venusis not getting hotter, whereas insteadVenushas
> > been gradually cooling off.
>
> > “Mysterious Haze Found onVenus”
> > http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080222-venus-haze.html
> > CO2+H2O=H2CO3 (Carbonic acid), and H2SO4 (Sulfuric acid) each
> > involve large volumes and subsequent teratonnes of h2o2. (at 4.8e20
> > kg, if merely 0.1% of which being h2o amounts to 4.8e17 kg = 480
> > teratonnes as water, and even if this were limited to the 25<75 km of
> > haze and clouds would still represent many teratonnes of easily
> > accessible acidic water that a 5th grader could distil into pure h2o)
>
> > Where's the big mystery?
>
> > UV attenuation could be most anything from mathane to volcanic
>
> ...
>
> read more »
BradGuth
> Venus rising with the sun Live now on mawson webcam???http://www.aad.gov.au/asset/webcams/mawson/default.asp
>
> The only thing I remember coming from the sky in Daniel and
> Revelations is a great mountain that crashes into the sea. The one in
> Daniel ´covers the earth´ as the Kingdom of God. The one in
> Revelations simply destroys a third of the life in the oceans.
Sooner or later we'll get nailed by that big one, possibly in December
2012.
While you're at it, fork over a Google Groups 5 gold star bonus for my
topic.
~ BG
BradGuth
Perhaps the Venus EXPRESS PFS has actually been working its magic
after all, though without publicly sharing its data..
http://pfsweb.ifsi.rm.cnr.it/documenti/venere/pfs4ven.pdf
“Please, click here to enter Data Restricted Area.”
”Remember: you need User ID and Password!”
“figure 6 a,b,c here to the normal venus spectrum , as seen by pfs ,
we have added in the low atmosphere ( between 5 and 15 km) 10 times
more water vapour , as could be perhaps from an active volcano. the
red spectrum , rich of water clearly shows strong differences. only
9700 – 9800 cm-1 radiance is essentially kept the same . this is the
thermal emission from the soil which is not very affected by the
atmosphere.”
I find it somewhat to extremely odd, and thus suspicious that we still
have so much cloak and dagger of need-to-know secrecy existing about
the planet Venus, almost as though NASA, ESA and Russia have a little
something to hide. As why otherwise would such a robust and
previously mission proven PFS instrument have so oddly failed to
function properly, and then sharing no public data as to why or much
less how such equipment failure took place?
~ BG
BradGuth
? The hand of God ? (thank the almighty for making such highly false
colorized and composite astronomy so mainstream eye-candy and
astronomy hype acceptable)
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/objects/images/young-pulsar.jpg
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2009/b1509/b1509.jpg
Too bad the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this case is
wisely taking the fifth, as in obfuscating their butts off.
I can see that our official Usenet/newsgroup topic banishment policy
is running at full tilt, whereas in this case Big Energy and our soon
to be unplugged NASA are in some kind of mutual cahoots with one
another.
~ BG
BradGuth
Don't tell me, there's still not a Usenet/newsgroup contributing soul
that can enlarge their penis, much less a rock solid (36 look/pixel)
composite radar obtained image of Venus.
I should have known, that anything involving pixels was asking too
much.
~ BG.
UncleEnglish
Thanks, Brad. I appealed for a bit of wit and humour, and, boy, did I
get it! I have the notes for a few more sketches and though it's a
holiday here just can't find the time.
--
Yrs,
John.
BradGuth
Perhaps our DARPA has since developed a big blue pill they can take
for enlarging/resampling such pixels, as well as for enlarging their
penis and its attached two ball shaped brains at the same time.
I didn't realize that monochrome image enlarging was so gosh darn
complicated and unreliable, and yet artificially colorized and
extensively resampled plus multi-composite stacked images for our
mainstream public eye-candy fornicating media, as well as science
journals and textbooks (including LeapFrog) are perfectly fine and
dandy.
~ BG
BradGuth
> get it! I have the notes for a few more sketches and though it's a
> holiday here just can't find the time.
> --
> Yrs,
> John.
Notice how there is still no apparent digital pixel expertise
throughout all of Usenet/newsgroups. What sort of brain-wash did
Google/NOVA Groups do to these folks?
Perhaps our DARPA has since developed a big blue pill they can take
for enlarging/resampling such pixels, as well as for enlarging their
penis and its attached two ball shaped brains at the same time.
I certainly never realized that monochrome image enlarging was so gosh
darn complicated and unreliable, yet their own artificially colorized
and extensively resampled plus multi-composite stacked images for our
mainstream public eye-candy fornicating media, as well as published
extensively within science journals and textbooks (including LeapFrog)
are perfectly fine and dandy, as well as faith-based approved.
~ BG
BradGuth
of how to best enlarge and clean up a digital image without distorting
a darn thing?
How about all of those nifty reservoirs?
What exactly did you think of that fluid arch?
~ BG
On Mar 31, 1:51 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
BradGuth
to properly enlarge a digital image. Much older than a 5th grader and
their minds are turning into mainstream mush, so much so skewed into
the box and/or status quo mindset that it doesn't hardly matter
whatever a digital image has to offer.
Of those older than 5th grade have to be on special drugs before they
can think for themselves, whereas otherwise the mainstream drug of
being cartel/cabal accepted is simply too strong of dosage to deal
with whatever isn't within the mainstream box.
~ BG
BradGuth
Winder if I included something of smut worthy content, if that would
get better attention?
~ BG
On Apr 14, 7:27 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
BradGuth
Are we being afraid of whatever's dark and scary, or in the case of
Venus being bright and a little hot from the inside out?
~ BG
BradGuth
Apparently independent and much less deductive observationology of any
sort is some kind of extreme taboo/witchcraft that's way too dark and
scary for even the smartest of Usenet/newsgroup wizards.
Where's all the supposed "right stuff" when we need it? (obviously
hiding where the sun don't shine)
~ BG
vtcapo
BG,
I don't have the programs to do what you suggest. How about just
posting the images so I can take a look. When I get the right program
for my new Mac I'll try to duplicate.
So what do you say???
RT
BradGuth
This old link still works, though badly outdated and seriously wordy,
it has most of my original images taken from the 225 m/pixel
original. I've learned how to do a little better enlargements, and
how to use half as many words. Roughly 2/3 down the index page, the
5X image is actually pretty good, considering the crappy photo
software that I was using.
~ BG
BradGuth
This old link still works, though badly outdated and seriously wordy,
it has most of my original images taken from the 225 m/pixel
original. I've learned how to do a little better enlargements, and
how to use half as many words. Roughly 2/3 down the index page, the
5X image is actually pretty good, considering the crappy photo
software that I was using.
btw, if you can't manage to deal with a free or dirt-cheap download
photo enlarging software package, of too many to mention, then perhaps
your little green LeapFrog laptop is hopeless, as well as its operator
isn't worthy of other than playing video games.
Go to the original GIF image file that's 225 m/pixel, and do your own
thing before reporting back. If still having trouble, at least read
the introduction of this topic.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
~ BG
BradGuth
Apparently, perfectly natural but impressive looking geological
features that exist nowhere else in our solar system, along with more
than a few extremely artificial looking items of a most likely bridge,
a definite tarmac, nearby township or merely commercial/industrial
looking structures, an airship or two and multiple revisions or
modifications to their local terrain that seem entirely rational, for
that of having accommodated some kind of intelligent other life, as
such still has our mainstream folks doing as much tactical obfuscation
and media damage-control as possible. Sorry about that.
Of course it doesn't help that the regular laws of physics and best
available science is also backing up my observationology and the
subsequent deductive interpretation of all this. Sorry about that
too.
Too bad our DARPA and NASA are simply way too busy at covering their
butts and otherwise preying like Muslims that BHO doesn't pull their
plug. Not that I didn't inform our civilian wizards and countless
others as supposedly having "the right stuff" from the very get go, as
to something of great interest and potential reward that needed to be
reviewed, as to what the planet Venus had to offer. Unfortunately, I
might as well have reported all this to a brick wall.
~ BG
The Mad Ape
> On May 3, 8:59 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 2, 5:17 pm, vtcapo <vtc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 2, 6:47 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 14, 7:27 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Where's the digital image expertise, of those knowing better than most
>>>>> of how to best enlarge and clean up a digital image without distorting
>>>>> a darn thing?
>>>>> How about all of those nifty reservoirs?
>>>>> What exactly did you think of that fluid arch?
>>>>> ~ BG
>>>>> On Mar 31, 1:51 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> block that sound of my nifty horn, because I�ll gladly return the warm
>>>>>> and fuzzy favor with all the love and affection that I can muster.
>>>>>> for the kinds of sloppy pixels that are so easily distorted and/or
>>>>>> understand this, then there no need of your contributions unless
>>>>>> portion of this 225 m/pixel image, by merely resampling/enlarging at
>>>>>> not greater than 5x (by changing the 72 dpi to 360 dpi).
>>>>>> If using PhotoShop, be certain to also apply the primary image sharpen
>>>>>> filter "unsharp mask" (150, 3, 0 or trial and error it until you get
>>>>>> whatever seems clear but not so over-done that everything gets
>>>>>> don�t over do it because you can lose more detail than you gain.
>>>>>> Take your sweet time looking this extremely interesting area over, by
>>>>>> way of zooming in and out and then perhaps you should tell me, out of
>>>>>> supposed to be so entirely unlivable, what else in pixel patterns do
>>>>>> you interpret?
>>>>>> That's my wee bit simplified process of digital image enlarging, as it
>>>>>> takes some practice in order to master some of the PhotoShop finer
>>>>>> points of enlarging and filtering in order to get the best undistorted
>>>>>> enlargement results, all of which can of course be reversed and redone
>>>>>> as often as you like, because the original 225 m/pixel composite image
>>>>>> of 36 radar looks per pixel is always available.
>>>>>> The really good news, in my deductive observationology interpretation,
>>>>>> there has been some kind of other intelligent life existing/coexisting
>>>>>> on Venus. However, perhaps the bad news is, they could be a whole lot
>>>>>> better evolved and even smarter than either of us.
If you can see the crap you claim to see in those photos then I want
some of whatever it is that you are smokin' cuz Boy, youse is
hallucifreakin'
The Mad Ape
www.tatumba.com
BradGuth
> BradGuth wrote:
> > On May 3, 8:59 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 2, 5:17 pm, vtcapo <vtc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On May 2, 6:47 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Apr 14, 7:27 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Where's the digital image expertise, of those knowing better than most
> >>>>> of how to best enlarge and clean up a digital image without distorting
> >>>>> a darn thing?
> >>>>> How about all of those nifty reservoirs?
> >>>>> What exactly did you think of that fluid arch?
> >>>>> ~ BG
> >>>>> On Mar 31, 1:51 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> block that sound of my nifty horn, because I’ll gladly return the warm
> >>>>>> and fuzzy favor with all the love and affection that I can muster.
> >>>>>> for the kinds of sloppy pixels that are so easily distorted and/or
> >>>>>> understand this, then there no need of your contributions unless
> >>>>>> portion of this 225 m/pixel image, by merely resampling/enlarging at
> >>>>>> not greater than 5x (by changing the 72 dpi to 360 dpi).
> >>>>>> If using PhotoShop, be certain to also apply the primary image sharpen
> >>>>>> filter "unsharp mask" (150, 3, 0 or trial and error it until you get
> >>>>>> whatever seems clear but not so over-done that everything gets
> >>>>>> Take your sweet time looking this extremely interesting area over, by
> >>>>>> way of zooming in and out and then perhaps you should tell me, out of
> >>>>>> supposed to be so entirely unlivable, what else in pixel patterns do
> >>>>>> you interpret?
> >>>>>> That's my wee bit simplified process of digital image enlarging, as it
> >>>>>> takes some practice in order to master some of the PhotoShop finer
> >>>>>> points of enlarging and filtering in order to get the best undistorted
> >>>>>> enlargement results, all of which can of course be reversed and redone
> >>>>>> as often as you like, because the original 225 m/pixel composite image
> >>>>>> of 36 radar looks per pixel is always available.
> >>>>>> The really good news, in my deductive observationology interpretation,
> >>>>>> there has been some kind of other intelligent life existing/coexisting
> >>>>>> on Venus. However, perhaps the bad news is, they could be a whole lot
> >>>>>> better evolved and even smarter than either of us.
Now there's a contributor name we can all trust: The Mad Ape
If you're such a "mad ape", then why are you not clinically caged up
and sucking on a banana as you pick at your butt?
Obviously you are quite blind, and otherwise dumber than dumb if you
can't manage to see those complex reservoirs, among a few other
interesting things that seem entirely out of place. Don't say, you're
another pretend-Atheist to boot?
Are you going to post a link to a better quality enlargement?
~ BG
The Mad Ape
> Now there's a contributor name we can all trust: The Mad Ape
Thank you for your vote of confidence. Maybe I will zazzle me up a new
t-shirt: 'In Ape We Trust'
> If you're such a "mad ape", then why are you not clinically caged up
> and sucking on a banana as you pick at your butt?
I used to be locked up but grew tired of the experiments that the men in
white lab coats preformed on me. One of their experiments, called MST3K
- S03E06 ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOK72ptXzHs ), backfired and
caused my skin and hair to turn blue. A particular benefit I developed
was the ability to humanize myself to a certain extent. I know can carry
on conversation with humanity and express my anger and contempt for them.
Take you for instance, you are a complete reject from the puzzle factory
who can see things in images that are not there. I suggest you check
yourself back in. Also please remember to take your lithium.
> Obviously you are quite blind, and otherwise dumber than dumb if you
> can't manage to see those complex reservoirs, among a few other
> interesting things that seem entirely out of place. Don't say, you're
> another pretend-Atheist to boot?
Not blind. Not dumb. I can see clearly that you are an r-tard and a
kook. Best order yourself up an new tinfoil hat. The old one is leaking.
As for my religious beliefs...I pray to the Banana God.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGMuIyBK5P4
> Are you going to post a link to a better quality enlargement?
Yes
The Mad Ape
www.tatumba.com
BradGuth
> BradGuth wrote:
> > Now there's a contributor name we can all trust: The Mad Ape
>
> Thank you for your vote of confidence. Maybe I will zazzle me up a new
> t-shirt: 'In Ape We Trust'
>
> > If you're such a "mad ape", then why are you not clinically caged up
> > and sucking on a banana as you pick at your butt?
>
> I used to be locked up but grew tired of the experiments that the men in
> white lab coats preformed on me. One of their experiments, called MST3K
> caused my skin and hair to turn blue. A particular benefit I developed
> was the ability to humanize myself to a certain extent. I know can carry
> on conversation with humanity and express my anger and contempt for them.
>
> Take you for instance, you are a complete reject from the puzzle factory
> who can see things in images that are not there. I suggest you check
> yourself back in. Also please remember to take your lithium.
>
> > Obviously you are quite blind, and otherwise dumber than dumb if you
> > can't manage to see those complex reservoirs, among a few other
> > interesting things that seem entirely out of place. Don't say, you're
> > another pretend-Atheist to boot?
>
> Not blind. Not dumb. I can see clearly that you are an r-tard and a
> kook. Best order yourself up an new tinfoil hat. The old one is leaking.
>
> As for my religious beliefs...I pray to the Banana God.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGMuIyBK5P4
>
> > Are you going to post a link to a better quality enlargement?
>
> Yes
>
> The Mad Apewww.tatumba.com
If you say so. Of course you most likely followed every republican
pan of action, exactly as though you were one of them, or perhaps
worse yet you secretly supported GW Bush and Dick Cheney. Can your
actions prove otherwise?
I'll look forward to seeing your better quality enlargement of that
radar obtained image that I've clearly specified.
~ BG
The Mad Ape
http://www.tatumba.com/blog/archives/1153
>
> I'll look forward to seeing your better quality enlargement of that
> radar obtained image that I've clearly specified.
Yes
The Mad Ape
www.tatumba.com
BradGuth
Glad to see that you thoroughly despise those that most got us into
this insurmountable mess. Unfortunately, I don't do YouTube or any
similar video crap. Get over yourself.
~ BG
BradGuth
Oops! what's hot from the bottom up? (certainly not a hot water tank)
Why exactly does a fully insulated tank of electric element heated
water remain cool below the element?
~ BG
BradGuth
If you can't do the digital enlarging thing without making a mess of
it, then answer the following:
What's hot from the bottom up? (certainly not a hot water tank)
Why exactly does a fully insulated tank of electric element heated
water remain cool below the element?
This vertical thermal dynamic analogy by rights should apply to that
thick atmosphere of Venus. However, it’s just the opposite taking
place, whereas the bottom or surface is by far hottest, and it gets
progressively cooler as one goes higher and higher, and that’s even by
the season of daytime with <2650 w/m2 arriving from the top.
So, what’s stopping the penetration of all that solar energy from
reaching below those thick acidic clouds, much less getting anywhere
near the otherwise geothermally heated surface of Venus?
~ BG
BradGuth
Being faith-based blinded by the light, so to speak, seems to be what
most narrow mindset folks are up against, as in denial plus full blown
obfuscation failsafe mode is clearly the cause of such intellectual
constipation.
Perhaps if we gave this GIF radar obtained image format of 225 m/pixel
resolution to a group of our LeapFrog educated 5th graders, as such
they should be able to do as well or better than most of us at image
enlarging, without causing weird distortions or artificial illusions
of any kind.
~ BG
BradGuth
such a good sport about all of this, I will not even expect of you to
cite whatever makes you think the way you do about the planet Venus.
What's hot from the bottom up? (certainly not any hot water tank)
Why exactly does a fully insulated tank of electric element heated
water remain cool below the element?
Now folks, believe it or not, you can’t possibly get any more
greenhouse worthy than a fully insulated hot water tank as having a
fully IR spectrum heating element placed close to the bottom, as this
would be much the same as allowing 100% of the solar energy to
directly access the tank bottom, except instead receiving its IR
dosage at 10.5 kw/m2.
This vertical kind of thermal dynamic analogy, on behalf of such an
ideal greenhouse should by rights apply to that thick insulating and
nearly fluid like atmosphere of Venus. However, darn if it’s not just
the opposite taking place, whereas the bottom or planet surface is by
far the hottest, and it only gets progressively cooler as one goes
higher and higher above that toasty surface, and that’s even when
going by the season of daytime as having <2650 w/m2 arriving from the
top.
So, without our reinventing physics in order to suit, or selectively
obfuscating as to excluding some of the best available science that’s
easily enough replicated, we need to know what’s stopping the
penetration of all that solar energy from reaching below those thick
acidic clouds, much less getting anywhere near the otherwise
geothermally heated surface of Venus?
~ BG
On Apr 14, 7:27 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
BradGuth
Hmmmm, ideal greenhouse simulation is offered, and yet lo and behold,
not so much as a peep out of the usual crowd of brown-nosed clowns in
charge of our mainstream status quo that must use conditional laws of
physics and otherwise obfuscate and/or impose denial of everything
else that rocks their boat.
~ BG
BradGuth
Hmmmm, the ideal greenhouse simulation is offered as purely objective
and easily peer replicated, and yet lo and behold, there's not so much
as a peep out of the usual crowd of brown-nosed clowns in charge of
our mainstream status quo that must use conditional laws of physics
and otherwise obfuscate and/or impose denial upon most of everything
else that rocks their boat.
Why would mainstream religion be so systematically opposed to sharing
the best available truths about the planet Venus?
We’ll try offering this greenhouse analogy once again, and because I’m
being such a good sport about all of this, I will not even expect of
you to cite whatever makes you think the way you do about the planet
Venus.
What's hot from the bottom up? (certainly not any hot water tank)
Why exactly does a fully insulated tank of electric element heated
water remain cool below the element? (after all, the tank bottom is
also insulated)
Now folks, believe it or not, you can’t possibly get any more
greenhouse worthy than a fully insulated hot water tank as having a
fully IR spectrum heating element placed close to the bottom, as this
would be much the same as allowing 100% of the solar energy to
directly access the tank bottom, except instead receiving its IR
dosage at 10.5 kw/m2.
This vertical kind of thermal dynamic analogy, on behalf of such an
ideal greenhouse, should by rights apply to that thick insulating and
nearly fluid like atmosphere of Venus. However, darn if it’s not just
the opposite taking place, whereas the bottom or planet surface is by
far the hottest, and it only gets progressively cooler as one goes
higher and higher above that toasty surface, and that’s even when
going by the season of daytime as having <2650 w/m2 arriving from the
top.
So, without our reinventing physics in order to suit, or selectively
obfuscating as to excluding some of the best available science that’s
easily enough replicated, we need to know as to what’s stopping the
BradGuth
Where's all the fancy geology expertise, along with the digital image
talent of enlarging and colorizing in order to eye-candy hype and
suggest all sorts of stuff, as well as those better understandings of
applied physics and the appreciation for the best available science
about the planet Venus?
If we can supposedly survive our Selene/moon, as well as soon enough
Mars and those moons of Jupiter and Saturn, then why can't technology
be applied on behalf of other intelligent life surviving on Venus?
Perhaps the ESA Venus EXPRESS and its nifty PFS instrument has
actually been working its magic after all, though without publicly
sharing its new found data...
http://pfsweb.ifsi.rm.cnr.it/documenti/venere/pfs4ven.pdf
“Please, click here to enter Data Restricted Area.”
”Remember: you need User ID and Password!”
“figure 6 a,b,c here to the normal venus spectrum , as seen by pfs ,
we have added in the low atmosphere ( between 5 and 15 km) 10 times
more water vapour , as could be perhaps from an active volcano. the
red spectrum , rich of water clearly shows strong differences. only
9700 – 9800 cm-1 radiance is essentially kept the same . this is the
thermal emission from the soil which is not very affected by the
atmosphere.”
I find it somewhat to extremely odd, and thus suspicious that we still
have so much cloak and dagger of need-to-know secrecy existing about
the planet Venus, almost as though NASA, ESA and Russia have a little
something to hide. As why otherwise would such a robust and
previously mission proven PFS instrument have so oddly failed to
function properly, and then sharing no public data as to why or much
less how such equipment failure took place?
It’s exactly as though they didn’t want us to realize how much of
Venus is technically alive and geothermally active, as though the
planet was not nearly as old as Earth, Mercury or Mars.
~ BG
BradGuth
If we can survive on the bottom of a near boiling hot water tank
that's essentially getting 10.5 kw/m2 of IR heated from the top,
because that fully greenhouse insulated environment below the IR
heating element is relatively cool, then by all means if the planet
Venus were only solar greenhouse heated and otherwise not being
geothermally heated from the bottom up, we should be good to go (so to
speak), with hardly any special protection to boot.
Of course that's not at all the case, because the Venus surface
environment is getting in fact extensively roasted, though primarily
from the bottom up.
~ BG
BradGuth
graders can safely accomplish, easily proving the planet Venus is
getting primarily heated from the bottom up, and lo and behold the
Usenet/newsgroup doors start slamming shut, and all the lights go out.
Terribly sorry about all that.
~ BG
On May 7, 4:16 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
BradGuth
Mention any real world greenhouse simulation that LeapFrog educated
5th graders can safely accomplish, easily proving the planet Venus is
getting primarily heated from the bottom up, and lo and behold the
Usenet/newsgroup doors start slamming shut, and all the lights go
out. The only life in the public eye are the very reddish eyes of the
most devout Zionist Nazis that can't stand the thought of allowing any
openly deductive thinking, because even one revision (no matters how
insignificant) can only beget another and another.
~ BG
BradGuth
> Mention a real world greenhouse simulation that LeapFrog educated 5th
> graders can safely accomplish, easily proving the planet Venus is
> getting primarily heated from the bottom up, and lo and behold the
> Usenet/newsgroup doors start slamming shut, and all the lights go out.
>
> Terribly sorry about all that.
I'm to guess by the kind of response that objective real world physics
and easily peer replicated science is per usual of no special value
around here. No wonder 99.9% of Usenet/newsgroups has been populated
by such liars and denial upon denial clowns, just like their pretend-
Atheist religion that has no problems protecting their SEC approved
Ponzi Madoff, other liars, pedafile priest and rabbis plus whatever
else is nasty and disgusting.
~ BG
zzbu...@netscape.net
> I’m trying to toot my own horn here, so don’t get in my way or try to
> block that sound of my nifty horn, because I’ll gladly return the warm
> and fuzzy favor with all the love and affection that I can muster.
>
> The radar obtained images that I’ve utilized are not bogus or eligible
> for the kinds of sloppy pixels that are so easily distorted and/or
> misinterpreted when obtained via the visible spectrum. If you don’t
> understand this, then there no need of your contributions unless
> there’s an obvious basis of positive and thus constructive intent to
> behold.
Well, somebody has to get in the way them. Since the people
who actually uderstand the science and terminology of pixels mostly
invented
Optical Computers.,Flat Screen HDTV Debuggers, GPS, Digital-Terrain
Mapping,
Holograms, MP3, MPEG, CD-rom, DVD-rom, All-In-One Printers, XML,
USB, AUVs,
and Self-Assembling Robots because of the science and government
morons
who are stupid enough to think that there is such a thing as radar
pixels.
BradGuth
wrote:
> On Mar 31, 4:51 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I’m trying to toot my own horn here, so don’t get in my way or try to
> > block that sound of my nifty horn, because I’ll gladly return the warm
> > and fuzzy favor with all the love and affection that I can muster.
>
> > The radar obtained images that I’ve utilized are not bogus or eligible
> > for the kinds of sloppy pixels that are so easily distorted and/or
> > misinterpreted when obtained via the visible spectrum. If you don’t
> > understand this, then there no need of your contributions unless
> > there’s an obvious basis of positive and thus constructive intent to
> > behold.
>
> actually understand the science and terminology of pixels mostly
> invented Optical Computers.,Flat Screen HDTV Debuggers, GPS,
> Digital-Terrain Mapping, Holograms, MP3, MPEG, CD-rom, DVD-rom,
I guess any 36 confirming look per pixel via radar composite imaging
just isn't quite good enough or pixel truth-worthy enough to matter.
Perhaps we'll need to revise the laws of physics and toss out any and
all science that doesn't agree with the holy scriptures. That way we
can all go back to being republican heathens, of the Zionist Nazi kind
none the less.
~ BG
BradGuth
> that's essentially getting 10.5 kw/m2 of IR heated from the top,
> because that fully greenhouse insulated environment below the IR
> heating element is relatively cool, then by all means if the planet
> Venus were only solar greenhouse heated and otherwise not being
> geothermally heated from the bottom up, we should be good to go (so to
> speak), with hardly any special protection to boot.
>
> Of course that's not at all the case, because the Venus surface
> environment is getting in fact extensively roasted, though primarily
> from the bottom up.
If you can't imagine that I'm right, just go to your fully insulated
hot water tank and measure its lukewarm drain water temperature. Do
this test only after the lower electrical element has turnred off, and
then again whenever it turns back on without ever having used any of
the upper hot water, and thus having not added cold water (you many
need an adapter that'll keep your probe inserted through the lower
drain valve without losing the relatively cool drain water). Do this
a thousand times if you like, and report back, as to the bottom tank
temperature as opposed to the mid or upper tank temperature,
especially of whenever that lower element is activated (you can easily
force this along by simply cranking up the lower thermostat < 175 F if
you like, though newer tanks may only allow < 150 F)
~ BG
BradGuth
If you can't imagine that I'm right, just go to your fully insulated
hot water tank that we'll use as our greenhouse simulator, and measure
its lukewarm drain water temperature. Do this test only after the
lower electrical element has fully heated everything it can and having
turned off, and then again keep measuring whenever it turns back on
without ever having used any of the upper hot water, thus having not
BradGuth
insulated
hot water tank that we'll use as our greenhouse simulator, and measure
its lukewarm drain water temperature. Do this test only after the
lower electrical element has fully heated everything it can and having
turned off, and then again keep measuring whenever it turns back on
without ever having used any of the upper hot water, thus having not
added cold water (you many need an adapter that'll keep your probe
inserted through the lower drain valve without losing the relatively
cool drain water). Do this a thousand times if you like, and report
back, as to the bottom tank temperature as opposed to the mid or upper
tank temperature, especially of whenever that lower element is
activated (you can easily force this along by simply cranking up the
lower thermostat < 175 F if you like, though newer tanks may only
allow < 150 F)
On Mar 31, 1:51 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
This entire topic is about our getting the utmost NASA bang for our
sadly recession and SEC approved Ponzi Madoff inflated buck. If you
can't figure that much out for yourself, then perhaps you need to go
back and finish your 5th grade graduation.
~ BG
BradGuth
Interesting that such a simple test/simulation of greenhouse heating
doesn't apply to Venus.
Even better yet is how a 5th grader can so easily enlarge and
logically interpret an image, and that the very best of our DARPA and
NASA can't.
~ BG
BradGuth
Let us see, we're supposed to accept all the fancy composite
mainstream eye-candy as is, regardless of how it's layer upon layer
stacked and false colorized to death, and then we must further accept
their interpretation as to whatever it all means.
On the other hand, a first rate quality monochrome image of 36
confirming looks per composite radar obtained pixel that has no
optical distortions or false shadows to contend with, obtained at the
nearly ideal 3D perspective angle of 43 degrees, apparently isn't good
enough for any kind of deductive applied observationology.
This seems more than a little biased, as well as highly bigoted and
otherwise intellectually racist plus faith-based motivated to boot.
But then, most of this public Usenet/newsgroup has been carefully
orchestrated into being this way from the very get go.
The Mad Ape
>> block that sound of my nifty horn, because I�ll gladly return the warm
>> and fuzzy favor with all the love and affection that I can muster.
>>
>> for the kinds of sloppy pixels that are so easily distorted and/or
>> understand this, then there no need of your contributions unless
>> portion of this 225 m/pixel image, by merely resampling/enlarging at
>> not greater than 5x (by changing the 72 dpi to 360 dpi).
>>
>> If using PhotoShop, be certain to also apply the primary image sharpen
>> filter "unsharp mask" (150, 3, 0 or trial and error it until you get
>> whatever seems clear but not so over-done that everything gets
>>
>> Take your sweet time looking this extremely interesting area over, by
>> way of zooming in and out and then perhaps you should tell me, out of
Here I will help you out a bit with my observationology. You are
obviously a loon because you have been carrying on a conversation with
yourself about non-natural structure on the planet Venus based on
imagery that look like beach sand at St. Pete's...HELLO...Can you say
Puzzle Factory?
TMA
BradGuth
> BradGuth wrote:
> > On Mar 31, 1:51 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> block that sound of my nifty horn, because I’ll gladly return the warm
> >> and fuzzy favor with all the love and affection that I can muster.
>
> >> for the kinds of sloppy pixels that are so easily distorted and/or
> >> understand this, then there no need of your contributions unless
> >> portion of this 225 m/pixel image, by merely resampling/enlarging at
> >> not greater than 5x (by changing the 72 dpi to 360 dpi).
>
> >> If using PhotoShop, be certain to also apply the primary image sharpen
> >> filter "unsharp mask" (150, 3, 0 or trial and error it until you get
> >> whatever seems clear but not so over-done that everything gets
>
> >> Take your sweet time looking this extremely interesting area over, by
> >> way of zooming in and out and then perhaps you should tell me, out of
>
> Here I will help you out a bit with my observationology. You are
> obviously a loon because you have been carrying on a conversation with
> yourself about non-natural structure on the planet Venus based on
> imagery that look like beach sand at St. Pete's...HELLO...Can you say
> Puzzle Factory?
>
> TMA
Your denial of being in denial is noted, as is your bias towards
favoring anything in official NASA published infomercials. If I was a
snookered and dumbfounded as yourself, I too would be following in
those same mainstream footsteps.
There's nothing the least bit difficult about our seeing what's there
to behold about the planet Venus that's looking so geologically very
active, physically interesting as all get out, and hosting whomever or
whatever was intelligent enough as to being smarter than a hot rock.
It's not my fault if you flunked out of duh-101.
~ BG
The Mad Ape
> On May 18, 12:39 pm, The Mad Ape <chief...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> BradGuth wrote:
>>> On Mar 31, 1:51 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> block that sound of my nifty horn, because I�ll gladly return the warm
>>>> and fuzzy favor with all the love and affection that I can muster.
>>>> for the kinds of sloppy pixels that are so easily distorted and/or
>>>> understand this, then there no need of your contributions unless
>>>> portion of this 225 m/pixel image, by merely resampling/enlarging at
>>>> not greater than 5x (by changing the 72 dpi to 360 dpi).
>>>> If using PhotoShop, be certain to also apply the primary image sharpen
>>>> filter "unsharp mask" (150, 3, 0 or trial and error it until you get
>>>> whatever seems clear but not so over-done that everything gets
>>>> Take your sweet time looking this extremely interesting area over, by
>>>> way of zooming in and out and then perhaps you should tell me, out of
>> Here I will help you out a bit with my observationology. You are
>> obviously a loon because you have been carrying on a conversation with
>> yourself about non-natural structure on the planet Venus based on
>> imagery that look like beach sand at St. Pete's...HELLO...Can you say
>> Puzzle Factory?
>>
>> TMA
>
> Your denial of being in denial is noted, as is your bias towards
> favoring anything in official NASA published infomercials. If I was a
> snookered and dumbfounded as yourself, I too would be following in
> those same mainstream footsteps.
>
> There's nothing the least bit difficult about our seeing what's there
> to behold about the planet Venus that's looking so geologically very
> active, physically interesting as all get out, and hosting whomever or
> whatever was intelligent enough as to being smarter than a hot rock.
> It's not my fault if you flunked out of duh-101.
>
> ~ BG
Oh now I get it. You are right. How stupid of me. It is the Goldilocks
Theory of Planification. Sol-2 was too hot, Sol-4 was too cold, and
Sol-3 was just right.
Twit
TMA
BradGuth
> BradGuth wrote:
> > On May 18, 12:39 pm, The Mad Ape <chief...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> BradGuth wrote:
> >>> On Mar 31, 1:51 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> block that sound of my nifty horn, because I’ll gladly return the warm
> >>>> and fuzzy favor with all the love and affection that I can muster.
> >>>> for the kinds of sloppy pixels that are so easily distorted and/or
> >>>> understand this, then there no need of your contributions unless
> >>>> portion of this 225 m/pixel image, by merely resampling/enlarging at
> >>>> not greater than 5x (by changing the 72 dpi to 360 dpi).
> >>>> If using PhotoShop, be certain to also apply the primary image sharpen
> >>>> filter "unsharp mask" (150, 3, 0 or trial and error it until you get
> >>>> whatever seems clear but not so over-done that everything gets
> >>>> Take your sweet time looking this extremely interesting area over, by
> >>>> way of zooming in and out and then perhaps you should tell me, out of
> >> Here I will help you out a bit with my observationology. You are
> >> obviously a loon because you have been carrying on a conversation with
> >> yourself about non-natural structure on the planet Venus based on
> >> imagery that look like beach sand at St. Pete's...HELLO...Can you say
> >> Puzzle Factory?
>
> >> TMA
>
> > Your denial of being in denial is noted, as is your bias towards
> > favoring anything in official NASA published infomercials. If I was a
> > snookered and dumbfounded as yourself, I too would be following in
> > those same mainstream footsteps.
>
> > There's nothing the least bit difficult about our seeing what's there
> > to behold about the planet Venus that's looking so geologically very
> > active, physically interesting as all get out, and hosting whomever or
> > whatever was intelligent enough as to being smarter than a hot rock.
> > It's not my fault if you flunked out of duh-101.
>
> > ~ BG
>
> Oh now I get it. You are right. How stupid of me. It is the Goldilocks
> Theory of Planification. Sol-2 was too hot, Sol-4 was too cold, and
> Sol-3 was just right.
>
> Twit
>
> TMA
As evasive and full of obfuscation as you can make this, you're making
everything much harder than it needs to be.
If we absolutely needed whatever the planet Venus had to offer,
existing technology would be sufficient as to allow us to safely go
there, as well as to survive in order to extract and process whatever,
and return ourselves to Eden/Earth none the worse off.
Earth 2.0 needn't be anything like Earth 1.0, or vise versa. The same
goes for our Selene/moon needn't be anything like any other moon that
we can technically mange to deal with.
Why would the Venusian or whatever visiting ETs be as snookered and
dumbfounded as yourself?
~ BG
BradGuth
> > there has been some kind of other intelligent life existing/coexisting
> > on Venus. However, perhaps the bad news is, they could be a whole lot
> > better evolved and even smarter than either of us.
It seems that we are supposed to accept all of the fancy composite
mainstream eye-candy as is, regardless of however it's layer upon
layer stacked and false colorized to death, and then we must further
accept their interpretation as to whatever it all means.
On the other hand, a first rate quality monochrome image of 36
confirming looks per composite radar obtained pixel that has no
optical distortions or false shadows to contend with, obtained at the
nearly ideal 3D perspective angle of 43 degrees, apparently isn't good
enough for any kind of deductive applied observationology.
This seems a tad more than a little biased, as well as highly bigoted
and otherwise intellectually racist plus faith-based motivated to
boot. But then, most of this public Usenet/newsgroup has been
carefully orchestrated into being this way from the very get go, and
there's certainly no apparent policing of their own kind, so most of
anything goes without any enforced policy of fairness or forbid open
mindedness.
BradGuth
This topic has 9 authors, 7 of which are real pathetic losers and
primarily topic/author stalkers that hate just about anything that
moves, and would do whatever they could to kill off such topics that
are on their NO FLY list.
~ BG
The Mad Ape
> On May 19, 6:51 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 18, 10:28 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 31, 1:51 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> block that sound of my nifty horn, because I�ll gladly return the warm
>>>> and fuzzy favor with all the love and affection that I can muster.
>>>> for the kinds of sloppy pixels that are so easily distorted and/or
>>>> understand this, then there no need of your contributions unless
>>>> portion of this 225 m/pixel image, by merely resampling/enlarging at
>>>> not greater than 5x (by changing the 72 dpi to 360 dpi).
>>>> If using PhotoShop, be certain to also apply the primary image sharpen
>>>> filter "unsharp mask" (150, 3, 0 or trial and error it until you get
>>>> whatever seems clear but not so over-done that everything gets
>>>> Take your sweet time looking this extremely interesting area over, by
>>>> way of zooming in and out and then perhaps you should tell me, out of
>
> This topic has 9 authors, 7 of which are real pathetic losers and
> primarily topic/author stalkers that hate just about anything that
> moves, and would do whatever they could to kill off such topics that
> are on their NO FLY list.
>
> ~ BG
No. Not really. Can't speak for the others but when I see a loon on
Usenet that is off of his meds...well I just can't help myself.
TMA
BradGuth
> BradGuth wrote:
> > On May 19, 6:51 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 18, 10:28 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 31, 1:51 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> block that sound of my nifty horn, because I’ll gladly return the warm
> >>>> and fuzzy favor with all the love and affection that I can muster.
> >>>> for the kinds of sloppy pixels that are so easily distorted and/or
> >>>> understand this, then there no need of your contributions unless
> >>>> portion of this 225 m/pixel image, by merely resampling/enlarging at
> >>>> not greater than 5x (by changing the 72 dpi to 360 dpi).
> >>>> If using PhotoShop, be certain to also apply the primary image sharpen
> >>>> filter "unsharp mask" (150, 3, 0 or trial and error it until you get
> >>>> whatever seems clear but not so over-done that everything gets
> >>>> Take your sweet time looking this extremely interesting area over, by
> >>>> way of zooming in and out and then perhaps you should tell me, out of
>
> > This topic has 9 authors, 7 of which are real pathetic losers and
> > primarily topic/author stalkers that hate just about anything that
> > moves, and would do whatever they could to kill off such topics that
> > are on their NO FLY list.
>
> > ~ BG
>
> No. Not really. Can't speak for the others but when I see a loon on
> Usenet that is off of his meds...well I just can't help myself.
>
> TMA
We've always known what you think. Unfortunately there's nothing to
your name that gives us any hope or pride. So, what's your pathetic
point this time?
You don't even know how to use digital photo software, because you've
never once having demonstrated squat.
~ BG
BradGuth
scary?
Why am I the only one capable of enlarging a small portion of that
image?
~ BG
BradGuth
Where's the big insurmountable difficulty in digital image enlarging?
How badly can the original image be distorted into representing false
positives?
~ BG
BradGuth
Hmmmm, apparently there's still not an honest digital image expertise
to be found within the whole bunch of you silly mainstream status quo
kinds of wizards. Where's the big insurmountable difficulty in digital
image enlarging?
Exactly how badly can the original image be intentionally distorted
into representing false positives?
Why can't any of you experts give us your best photo enlarging effort,
as proof positive as to why it's seemingly possible to identify that
which looks as though artificial, as in a very intelligent and/or
rational kind of way?
~ BG
BradGuth
I forgot to add, that most any 5th grader with a $100 digital camera
likely has the enlargement software that came with their camera.
Otherwise there are any number of free digital image enlarging
alternatives that most any 5th grader could understand. Even some of
the newer cell phone cameras can do image resizing/zooming and
reprocess along with the 'unsharp mask' kind of enlargements.
It seems only the most devout Zionist Nazis and their rabbis are those
still dumbfounded past the point of no return.
BradGuth
Sadly, I and most others can not directly fix the defective parts of
what supports a corrupt government and bloated civil service system,
but we (meaning BHO and his mostly democratic partners) can stop
funding these spendy and clearly unproductive agendas.
BradGuth
Our public news media and countless publications gladly take our
public loot in order to publish whatever is handed to them, and
usually published as is without any capability of independent fact
checking or much less permission to change the context of anything.
No wonder we're at war and most of everything else is going so badly
(except for the truly rich and powerful that are extremely happy
campers).
Just like the AIG fiasco of total top to bottom insider corruption
(aka ENRON and Ponzi Madoff except on hyper-steroids), plus dozens of
other corporations that are showing us their ugly butts as they
proceed to shit upon us, and at best we get stuck with their hazmat
and all the dry cleaning tabs, plus whatever public funded cleanup and/
or bailout of their social and physical mess each left behind. We're
talking about trillions of additional public debt that'll likely never
get more than 10% repaid by those responsible.
If looking at a perfectly honest monochrome digital image of Venus is
taboo, as well as forbidden to resample/enlarge or much less
deductively review as based upon the regular laws of physics and best
available science, just imagine what else is being kept from us, as
nondisclosure or need to know rated.
The Mad Ape
> On May 18, 10:28 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 31, 1:51 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> block that sound of my nifty horn, because I�ll gladly return the warm
>>> and fuzzy favor with all the love and affection that I can muster.
>>> for the kinds of sloppy pixels that are so easily distorted and/or
>>> understand this, then there no need of your contributions unless
>>> portion of this 225 m/pixel image, by merely resampling/enlarging at
>>> not greater than 5x (by changing the 72 dpi to 360 dpi).
>>> If using PhotoShop, be certain to also apply the primary image sharpen
>>> filter "unsharp mask" (150, 3, 0 or trial and error it until you get
>>> whatever seems clear but not so over-done that everything gets
>>> Take your sweet time looking this extremely interesting area over, by
>>> way of zooming in and out and then perhaps you should tell me, out of
>
Is there a newsgroup called alt.loon or alt.kook? If there is please go
there now.
TMA
Jack Sprat
> BradGuth wrote:
[...]
>> If looking at a perfectly honest monochrome digital image of Venus is
>> taboo, as well as forbidden to resample/enlarge or much less
>> deductively review as based upon the regular laws of physics and best
>> available science, just imagine what else is being kept from us, as
>> nondisclosure or need to know rated.
>>
>> ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / �Guth Usenet�
>>
>
> Is there a newsgroup called alt.loon or alt.kook? If there is please go
> there now.
>
> TMA
talk.bizarre and please follow him there
BradGuth
> BradGuth wrote:
> > On May 18, 10:28 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 31, 1:51 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> block that sound of my nifty horn, because I’ll gladly return the warm
> >>> and fuzzy favor with all the love and affection that I can muster.
> >>> for the kinds of sloppy pixels that are so easily distorted and/or
> >>> understand this, then there no need of your contributions unless
> >>> portion of this 225 m/pixel image, by merely resampling/enlarging at
> >>> not greater than 5x (by changing the 72 dpi to 360 dpi).
> >>> If using PhotoShop, be certain to also apply the primary image sharpen
> >>> filter "unsharp mask" (150, 3, 0 or trial and error it until you get
> >>> whatever seems clear but not so over-done that everything gets
> >>> Take your sweet time looking this extremely interesting area over, by
> >>> way of zooming in and out and then perhaps you should tell me, out of
>
> Is there a newsgroup called alt.loon or alt.kook? If there is please go
> there now.
>
> TMA
?
BradGuth
> The Mad Ape wrote:
> > BradGuth wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> If looking at a perfectly honest monochrome digital image of Venus is
> >> taboo, as well as forbidden to resample/enlarge or much less
> >> deductively review as based upon the regular laws of physics and best
> >> available science, just imagine what else is being kept from us, as
> >> nondisclosure or need to know rated.
>
>
> > Is there a newsgroup called alt.loon or alt.kook? If there is please go
> > there now.
>
> > TMA
>
> talk.bizarre and please follow him there
You're saying the regular laws of physics and best available science
is "bizarre"?
Have you a better enlarged image that's "bizarre"? (why of course not,
because you don't know how to even do that much)
~ BG
BradGuth
As I said, there's apparently not one image interpreting expert or
wizard of any kind within this mostly Republican and otherwise Zionist
Nazi saturated Usenet.
BradGuth
On May 27, 1:14 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
If there's anyone out there that knows how to enlarge a digital image,
perhaps you should give this one your best shot. Otherwise, I can do
this enlarging for you.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
Other thumbnail images, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth
Listen up folks, ETs most likely do exist, mostly because the odds
against other complex and even intelligent life existing/coexisting
somewhere off-world is simply too great, and otherwise the pro ET odds
are looking better all the time, as well as there’s every good enough
reason(s) to believe that some species of ETs have been here and/or
nearby all along, while others have merely come and gone as of
millions of years ago, as well as their having been utilizing the
planet Venus for all it’s worth. This is not to say that ETs are
somehow above or beyond the regular laws of physics or having
extremely advanced biological capabilities all that far and above
those of ours. However, their having local space travel capability of
<0.1c seems perfectly reasonable enough, and perhaps even as great as
<0.5c for their robotic probes or transponders accomplishing extended
interstellar treks may also have been technically doable, but I’d say
that’s about it.
Even at the velocity of 0.1c, the distances involved are often
staggering, and with only a few blue-shifted expectations, most other
potential goldilocks zones of exoplanets and their moons have been
getting further away. However, it seems we’re headed towards the
Sirius star/solar system, and even faster towards a partial encounter/
merger with the Andromeda galaxy that’s every bit as populated if a
whole lot not more so seems likely, thereby we have an entire galaxy
that’s mutually in blue-shift with us. In the not so distant past of
perhaps only a few hundred million years ago, it seems a smaller
galaxy gradually merged/encountered our Milky Way, as having
contributed all sorts of stellar companions, along with offering a few
of those terrific molecular clouds that gave birth to the likes of our
impressive Sirius star/solar system.
In the greater interpretation of all this, I certainly would not
intentionally exclude other evolutionary methods of ETs morphing and
achieving a level of physiological expertise within their own
intelligent design, of creating custom DNA/RNA on behalf of refining
complex forms of life (exactly as we are doing), including a few
highly specialized and intelligent forms as equal or better than our
human species that would have also developed and incorporated
technology in order to better accomplish their survival, especially on
behalf of surviving upon other planets as having extremes and/or
whatever lack or excess in local and renewable energy to work with, or
on behalf of environments believed to harsh/extreme for their
species. For this deductive analogy of planetary energy usage, you
simply have to rethink with an open mindset as to the all-inclusive
energy cycle, of which the extremely nearby planet Venus seems to have
far more than its fair share to work with.
Compared to the mostly CO2 icy and seemingly much older and
geologically defunct planet of Mars, Venus by rights should offer at
least a good million fold better treasure-trove of raw elements and
energy per cubic meter of its own geothermal and atmospheric forms to
draw upon, as well as in many ways more than a hundred fold better off
than anything Eden/Earth has to offer. Trying to suggest otherwise is
simply proof positive of the orchestrated intent by those in control
of our mainstream media, as well as via those of our Google Groups
(aka Usenet/newsgroups) that systematically topic/author stalk as
these brown-nose clowns of the mainstream status quo attempt to
disqualify others and otherwise systematically obfuscate, as meaning
to exclude whatever deductive observationology as well as to
continually banish or exclude the planetology of real physics and the
best available science that so happens to rock their faith-based and/
or politically correct boat.
If you don’t think I’m sufficiently correct, please feel free to prove
otherwise.
BradGuth
Listen up folks, ETs most likely do exist, mostly because the odds
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth
> Listen up folks, ETs most likely do exist, mostly because the odds
> against other complex and even intelligent life existing/coexisting
> somewhere off-world is simply too great, and otherwise the pro ET odds
> are looking better all the time, as well as there’s every good enough
> reason(s) to believe that some species of ETs have been here and/or
> nearby all along, while others have merely come and gone as of
> millions of years ago, as well as their having been utilizing the
> somehow above or beyond the regular laws of physics or having
> extremely advanced biological capabilities all that far and above
> those of ours. However, their having local space travel capability of
> <0.1c seems perfectly reasonable enough, and perhaps even as great as
> <0.5c for their robotic probes or transponders accomplishing extended
> interstellar treks may also have been technically doable, but I’d say
> that’s about it.
>
> staggering, and with only a few blue-shifted expectations, whereas
> most other potential goldilocks zones of exoplanets and their moons
> the Sirius star/solar system, even faster towards a partial encounter/
> merger with the Andromeda galaxy that’s every bit as populated if not a
> whole lot not more so seems likely, thereby we have an entire galaxy
> that’s mutually in blue-shift with us. In the not so distant past of
> perhaps only a few hundred million years ago, it seems a smaller
> galaxy gradually merged/encountered our Milky Way, as having
> contributed all sorts of stellar companions, along with offering a few
> of those terrific molecular clouds that gave birth to the likes of our
> impressive Sirius star/solar system.
>
> intentionally exclude other evolutionary methods of ETs morphing and
> intelligent design, of creating custom DNA/RNA on behalf of refining
> highly specialized and intelligent forms as equal or better than our
> human species that would have also developed and incorporated
> technology in order to better accomplish their survival, especially on
> behalf of surviving upon other planets as having extremes and/or
> whatever lack or excess in local and renewable energy to work with, or
> on behalf of environments believed to harsh/extreme for their species.
>
> simply have to rethink with an open mindset as to the all-inclusive
> energy cycle, of which the extremely nearby planet Venus seems to
> have far more than its fair share to work with.
>
> Compared to the mostly CO2 icy and seemingly much older and
> geologically defunct planet of Mars, Venus by rights should offer at
> least a good million fold better treasure-trove of raw elements and
> energy per cubic meter of its own geothermal and atmospheric forms to
> draw upon, as well as in many ways more than a hundred fold better off
> than anything Eden/Earth has to offer. Trying to suggest otherwise is
> simply proof positive of the orchestrated intent by those in control
> of our mainstream media, as well as via those of our Google Groups
> (aka Usenet/newsgroups) that systematically topic/author stalk as
> these brown-nose clowns of the mainstream status quo attempt to
> disqualify others and otherwise systematically obfuscate, as meaning
> to exclude whatever deductive observationology as well as to
> continually banish or exclude the planetology of real physics and the
> best available science that so happens to rock their faith-based and/
> or politically correct boat.
>
> If you don’t think I’m sufficiently correct, please feel free to prove
> otherwise.
I forgot to add; on behalf of those faith-based kinds of pretend-
Atheist (mostly devout Republican and Mafia/cabal types) simply don't
have to bother, because they'd only be rejected and/or harassed by
their own kind for any least bit of deductively thinking outside of
their cozy mainstream status quo box. This topic is for the honestly
open mindset that's willing to accept the regular laws of physics and
best available science that's easily peer replicated.
BradGuth
Forgot to warn those potential contributors of the mainstream infowar
gauntlet that's faith-based as well as politically and Big-Energy
funded, that's out to get anyone suggesting one iota of any sort of
revision to history, physics or science.
BradGuth
If the extremely nearby planet Venus is officially mainstream taboo/
nondisclosure rated (much the same as our moon), then perhaps going
further out is the only option.
HR 8799 at 130 ly distance, as viewed by a pair of terrestrial
telescopes having to deal with atmospheric distortions, offers s a
good example of what ETs might view of our solar system. Imagine if
such telescopes were in orbit, whereas instead of just obtaining the
deep IR detection of exoplanets, those better equipped ETs could go
for a visual and even the far better UV look-see at us.
Too bad we can not manage to place a pair of super-sized telescopes in
LEO, or much less within the Earth-moon L1 (Selene L1 and perhaps
Selene L2) where the bulk of whatever volume or mass would make hardly
any difference. Even a dirt cheap TRACE(e2) which could give us a
100x better than existing TRACE resolution plus superior dynamic range
of our own sun would have been a nice thing as of a decade ago.
Deploying a TRACE(e3) with sufficient DR(dynamic range) for looking
directly at the Sirius star/solar system should by now be possible,
and we might even discover its original molecular cloud that can't be
too far off.
BradGuth
By way if IR, it seems I can see clearly now, but then so can ETs half
as smart see even better, so why bother with a 100 meter array of
broad spectrum adaptive optics situated within Selene L1?
If the extremely nearby planet Venus that gives us panspermia flu most
every 19 months is officially mainstream taboo/nondisclosure rated
(much the same taboo/banishment as for our moon or its L1), then
perhaps going further out is the only viable option for this paranoid
Usenet/newsgroup that so fears anything new or much less revision of
any kind.
HR 8799 at 130 ly distance, as viewed by a pair of terrestrial
telescopes having to deal with atmospheric distortions, offers us a
good example of what ETs might view of our solar system as exoplanet
populated. However, imagine if such telescopes were in orbit, whereas
instead of just obtaining those deep IR detections of worthy
exoplanets, where those better equipped ETs could go for a visual and
even the far better UV look-see at us.
Too bad we still can not manage to place a pair of super-sized
telescopes in LEO, or much less within the Earth-moon L1 (Selene L1
and perhaps Selene L2) whereas the bulk of whatever volume or mass
would make hardly any difference. Even a dirt cheap TRACE(e2) which
could give us a 100x better than existing TRACE resolution plus
superior dynamic range of our own sun would have been a nice thing as
of a decade ago. Deploying a TRACE(e3) with 1000x plus sufficient DR
(dynamic range) for looking directly at the Sirius star/solar system
should by now have been possible, whereas we might even discover
Sirius C as a brown dwarf or that of an extremely small black hole, as
well as detecting the original molecular cloud which gave such a
recent and aggressive stellar birth, that can't be any too far off
considering how recently everything evolved.
The vast majority of exoplanet worlds as those associated with HR 8799
may be inhospitable to naked humans for any number of reasons, but
just imagine what happened within our Eden environment of this most
recent cosmic era, while the impressive Sirius solar system was
getting created from such a massive molecular cloud of perhaps
<120,000 solar masses (or was it another galactic black hole merging
kind of thing), as for Sirius B having so vibrantly evolved itself so
quickly into becoming the red supergiant and then suddenly becoming
the little white dwarf, is what must have been every bit as good as
our having a second sun, and it gets especially interesting if we’re
still making our trinary orbit about the Sirius barycenter every 100
thousand years. But then it seems we can’t honestly discuss
intelligent other life, no matters how probable or technology
assisted, without every topic attracting those brown-nosed clowns like
another swarm of killer bees.
BradGuth
better, so why even bother with a 100 meter array of broad spectrum
adaptive optics situated within Selene L1?
Perhaps avoiding any chance of having our physically dark moon within
the same FOV that has other planets and stars is more important than
you’d think, whereas underestimating this consideration alone could be
all the reason as to why we can’t be allowed this kind of orbital
station-keeping.
If the extremely nearby planet Venus that gives us panspermia flu most
every 19 months is officially mainstream taboo/nondisclosure rated
(much the same kind of taboo/banishment as for our moon or that of its
L1), then perhaps going further out is the only viable option for this
paranoid Usenet/newsgroup that so fears anything new or much less
imposing a revision of any kind.
HR 8799 at 130 ly distance, as viewed by a pair of terrestrial
telescopes having to deal with atmospheric distortions, offers us a
good example of what ETs might view of our solar system as exoplanet
populated. However, imagine if such telescopes were in orbit, whereas
instead of just obtaining those fuzzy deep IR detections of worthy
exoplanets, whereas those better equipped ETs with their orbiting
observatories could go for a visual and even the far better UV look-
see at us.
Too bad we still can not manage to place any pair of super-sized
telescopes in LEO, or much less within the Earth-moon L1 (Selene L1
and perhaps Selene L2) whereas the bulk of whatever volume or mass
would make hardly any difference. Even a dirt cheap TRACE(e2) which
could give us a 100x better than existing TRACE resolution plus
superior dynamic range of interpreting our own sun would have been a
nice thing as of a decade ago. Deploying a TRACE(e3) with its 1000x
boosted resolution plus sufficient DR(dynamic range) for looking
directly at the Sirius star/solar system should by now have been
possible, whereas we might even discover Sirius C as a brown dwarf or
that of an extremely small black hole, as well as detecting the
original molecular cloud which gave such a recent and aggressive
stellar birth, that can't be any too far off considering how recently
everything evolved.
The vast majority of exoplanet worlds, as those associated with HR
8799, may be inhospitable to naked humans for any number of reasons,
but just imagine what happened within our Eden environment of this
most recent cosmic era as of 250~350 BP, while the impressive Sirius
solar system was getting created from such a massive molecular cloud
of perhaps <120,000 solar masses (or was it another galactic
encounter or black hole merging kind of thing), as for Sirius B having
recently and vibrantly evolved itself so quickly into becoming the red
supergiant and then suddenly becoming the little white dwarf, is what
must have been every bit as good as our environment having a second
sun, and it gets especially interesting if we’re still making our
trinary orbit about the Sirius barycenter every 100 thousand years.
But then no matters what, it seems we can’t honestly discuss this or
much less intelligent other life, no matters how probable or
technology assisted, without every such topic attracting those brown-
nosed clowns like another swarm of faith-based killer bees.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth
Observationology isn't what it's cracked up to be, probably because it
has to do with our eyes and a brain that's capable of deductive
thought. Perhaps I should do like NASA and all those claiming that
government is incapable of making mistakes or telling lies, by
applying multiple stacks of artificially colorized pixels so that the
eye-candy and LeapFrog intellectual impact is maximized.
Perhaps the ESA Venus EXPRESS and its nifty PFS instrument has
actually been working its magic after all, though without publicly
sharing its new found data…
http://pfsweb.ifsi.rm.cnr.it/documenti/venere/pfs4ven.pdf
“Please, click here to enter Data Restricted Area.”
”Remember: you need User ID and Password!”
“figure 6 a,b,c here to the normal venus spectrum , as seen by pfs ,
we have added in the low atmosphere ( between 5 and 15 km) 10 times
more water vapour , as could be perhaps from an active volcano. the
red spectrum , rich of water clearly shows strong differences. only
9700 – 9800 cm-1 radiance is essentially kept the same . this is the
thermal emission from the soil which is not very affected by the
atmosphere.”
I find it somewhat to extremely odd, and thus suspicious that we still
have so much cloak and dagger of need-to-know secrecy existing about
the planet Venus, almost as though NASA, ESA and Russia have a little
something to hide. As why otherwise would such a robust and
previously mission proven PFS instrument have so oddly failed to
function properly, and then sharing no public data as to why or much
less how such equipment failure took place?
It’s exactly as though they didn’t want us to realize how much of
Venus is technically alive and geothermally active, as though the
planet was not nearly as old as Earth, Mercury or Mars.
BradGuth
Observationology isn't what it's cracked up to be, probably because it
has to do with usung our eyes and a brain that's capable of deductive
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth
Must be another bad kind of day for observationology, as well as for
any kind of deductive logic.
The Usenet/newsgroup clowns have even given up on this one, except of
course for my personal rabbi shadow that's in charge of news media
damage-control, and never far behind my every footstep.
BradGuth
Those of you as perhaps not quite 5th graders, and/or if otherwise
having trouble locating or accessing the unmoderated public Usenet/
newsgroups such as "alt.astronomy", as such may have to get onto an
outside server that's not having been stealth moderated to death by
those in charge of your brainwashing.
Deductive observational science isn't for everyone, much the same as
logical dot connecting of evidence isn't for everyone. The Magellan
SAR image that I'm working from is exactly what it is, and if you'd
care to think perfectly natural hot rock should look exactly like a
fairly substantial and complex tarmac, alongside a complex and
rational community plan of substantial structures, plus multiple
nearby reservoirs and that pesky bridge, plus whatever seems perfectly
rigid airship worthy, than so be it.
BradGuth
In spite of what my Jewish shadow and our resident Usenet/newsgroup
rabbi has to always say, and so unlike the secret pixels of Venus that
are a truthful composite of 36 confirming radar looks per 225 meter
monochrome pixel w/o optics to distort or otherwise skew anything,
whereas local CCD and optical recorded stuff pertaining to Earth is
downright nifty eye candy that’s hard not to be impressive.
First and foremost of all, planets are not representing a vanishing
point-source of photons like stars have to offer, and several planets
are simply going to be unavoidable if the camera is in orbit of Eden/
Earth or that of our physically dark Selene/moon, as well as from that
naked surface of our physically dark moon.
Just for a little comparison, icy cold (maximum of 170 K) Callisto is
22% reflective (roughly twice as reflective as our Selene/moon),
whereas Jupiter is 52% reflective and representing why it’s always
perfectly viewable along with our physically dark moon whenever in the
same FOV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callisto_(moon)
The following image of the Earth terminator with only moonshine
illuminating the dark side and otherwise the day portion as fully
solar illuminated is exactly what clearly proves the kind of dynamic
range that a modern CCD or CMOS imager outfitted camera has to work
with, which is way more than good enough when street lighting is
recorded along with a daytime portion that’s not the least bit over-
saturated. In other words, if our NASA wanted to (such as from our
Messenger mission), they could just as easily show us a few of those
brighter stars (especially Sirius) within the same FOV as beyond the
horizon of Mercury or via most any other mission in LEO, GAO, L1 or
L2, and especially as viewed along with that of our physically darker
moon (roughly a third as reflective as Earth w/o clouds, or w/clouds a
4th as reflective). Of course other planets (especially a nearby
Venus) are always going to record as so much brighter than stars, and
most often should look at least as bright or considerably brighter
than our physically dark as coal moon. However, without a UV and
purplish hue cutoff filter is where the absolute vibrance of the
Sirius star/solar system comes into an unfiltered CCD view with
photons to spare.
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/sunset-europe-africa.shtml
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030324.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0303/europesunset_livingearth_big.jpg
Stellar UV to the unfiltered satellite eye of what a naked CCD or CMOS
imager detects is actually a hard spectrum to avoid, especially when
there's no atmospheric filtering taking place. As well, the UV
secondary/recoil photons coming off our physically dark moon are going
to be unavoidably purple/bluish saturated unless optically bandpass
filtered out or simply PhotoShop excluded after the fact. Trust me,
fifth graders could accomplish as much, and a whole lot more, because
our moon actually offers a good deal of mineral color/hue
fluorescents.
Here’s one example of what a private astronomer can accomplish.
http://www.avertedimagination.com/moon_1.htm
http://www.avertedimagination.com/latest_1.htm
http://www.avertedimagination.com/img_pages/goodnightmoon100407.html
http://djsenn.podbean.com/wp-content/blogs5/84262/uploads/moon_color_1.jpg
NASA color/hue over-saturated image (none of these colors are
artificial):
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0602/Mooncolor060110schedler_35.jpg
So, if we can do this good of imaging our physically dark moon as of
more than a decade ago, then why not go for Venus, at least using our
existing SAR imager that with minor upgrades could easily deliver near
one meter resolution. Why shouldn't Venus have minerals to plunder?
BradGuth
> mainstream eye-candy as is, regardless of how it's layer upon layer
> stacked and false colorized to death, and then we must further accept
> their interpretation as to whatever it all means.
>
> On the other hand, a first rate quality monochrome image of 36
> confirming looks per composite radar obtained pixel that has no
> optical distortions or false shadows to contend with, obtained at the
> nearly ideal 3D perspective angle of 43 degrees, apparently isn't good
> enough for any kind of deductive applied observationology.
>
> This seems more than a little biased, as well as highly bigoted and
> otherwise intellectually racist plus faith-based motivated to boot.
> But then, most of this public Usenet/newsgroup has been carefully
> orchestrated into being this way from the very get go.
Where's the gumption of those claiming to be so always right,
especially when they can't even produce a digital enlargement of their
own?
Why is looking at and deductively interpreting those SAR obtained
images of Venus so unbearable?
So what if ETs are mining the planet Venus?
BradGuth
> On Jun 9, 9:38 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Observationology isn't what it's cracked up to be, probably because it
>
> Stellar UV to the unfiltered satellite eye of what a naked CCD or CMOS
> imager detects is actually a hard spectrum to avoid, especially when
> there's no atmospheric filtering taking place. As well, the UV
> secondary/recoil photons coming off our physically dark moon are going
> to be unavoidably purple/bluish saturated unless optically bandpass
> filtered out or simply PhotoShop excluded after the fact. Trust me,
> fifth graders could accomplish as much, and a whole lot more, because
> our moon actually offers a good deal of mineral color/hue
> fluorescents.
>
> Here’s one example of what a private astronomer can accomplish.
> http://www.avertedimagination.com/moon_1.htm
> http://www.avertedimagination.com/latest_1.htm
> http://www.avertedimagination.com/img_pages/goodnightmoon100407.html
>
> NASA color/hue over-saturated image (none of these colors are
> artificial):
> http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0602/Mooncolor060110schedler_35.jpg
>
> So, if we can do this good of imaging our physically dark moon as of
> more than a decade ago, then why not go for Venus, at least using our
> existing SAR imager that with minor upgrades could easily deliver near
> one meter resolution. Why shouldn't Venus have minerals to plunder?
BTW, even if you don't bother ro contribute, feel free to giving this
topic those maximum GOLD STARS, because it seriously pisses off my
Jewish shadow.
BradGuth
With unlimited local energy that's mostly renewable, what can't be
accomplished while on Venus?
BradGuth
> right, especially when they can't even produce a digital enlargement
> of their own?
>
> Why is looking at and deductively interpreting those SAR obtained
>
> So what if ETs are mining the planet Venus? (you got a problem with that?)
With unlimited local energy that's mostly renewable, what in hell
can't be accomplished while on Venus?
Obviously the mostly braille republican naysayers of the most faith-
based Zionist Nazi kind are having yet another bad year, of their own
kind being caught with both hands and their pecker in the public and
private cookie jars. I guess there's only so much devout debauchery
and false-flag tactics that such a unscrupulousness religious cult/
cabal can manage to get away with. Too bad they can't scare us
again, by way of putting Christ on a stick for a second time.
BradGuth
I hate to be telling you folks this, but within physics-101 is where
along with energy and especially if it's locally renewable, almost any
global environment (hot or cold, low or high pressure) is technically
manageable.
BradGuth
Are you still too afraid to look at what the planet Venus has to
offer?
What more can I do to help?
BradGuth
Where is all the digital image expertise hiding these days?
BradGuth
Perhaps if this monochrome digital image processing is simply
expecting too much of yourself, have a 5th grader do it for you.
BradGuth
Perhaps if this monochrome digital image processing is simply
expecting too much of yourself, have a 5th grader do it for you.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth
BTW, I lied about those "secret pixels". Noting is secret or even all
that will hidden from the SAR imaging. Only secret is that our NASA
and their original DARPA are not entirely what they claim to be.
BradGuth
Where's all the digital image processing expertise these days?
(obviously not anywhere in America)
With unlimited local energy that's mostly renewable, plus having every
conceivable mineral and perhaps even more easily obtainable of
whatever counts most, what's not to like or otherwise technically
possible for intelligent life surviving on the planet Venus?
Am I the only one that knows how the basic laws of physics work and
what the best available science has to say?
Am I the only one that isn't blinded by the mainstream light, so to
speak?
BradGuth
Interesting, how easily folks of Usenet/newsgroups have been so
systematically blinded and otherwise dumbfounded by the mainstream
status quo light. It's almost as though it's a cabal faith-based kind
of mindset that ignores the regular laws of physics and otherwise
banishes and/or excludes the best available science.
BradGuth
I seriously had no idea that so much of Google Groups and otherwise
these public Usenet/newsgroups were so genetically braille and totally
mainstream dumbfounded to boot.
Can any of you smart folks stipulate as to why the regular laws of
physics and best available science does not apply to the planet Venus?
Is being deathly afraid of your own shadow actually all that dark and
scary?
BradGuth
Now it seems Google Groups is making our public access for viewing
these Usenet/newsgroups a whole lot harder to deal with. Looks as
though the free ride to research and publish is just about over when
you can't even use the "Search Groups" function in order to see
whatever is happening across the entire body of Usenet of public
newsgroups. It seems we now have to go specifically into a given
newsgroup in order to accomplish a local "Search this group".
BradGuth
If you are a 5th grader or better, take an honest look-see at the GIF
image that I've pointed out, properly enlarge it and tell me what you
can see, or interpret the best you can as to whatever's natural or
artificial.