What’s new and improved about Venus
BradGuth
Besides all of the mainstream usual data that we’re supposed to accept
without doubts, fear or remorse, there’s other interpretations that
might not be so discouraging or insurmountable as you might think.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
Hagar
Bwahahahahahahahahhahah ... loon!!
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:799170d4-a2fb-42e4...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
BradGuth
> Like your Venusian airships ?????
> Bwahahahahahahahahhahah ... loon!!
>
>
> news:799170d4-a2fb-42e4...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Venus facts and what-ifs, or perhaps don’t ask and don’t tell.
>
> Besides all of the mainstream usual data that we’re supposed to accept
> without doubts, fear or remorse, there’s other interpretations that
> might not be so discouraging or insurmountable as you might think.
>
> ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
Unlike yourself, I'll try to be topic positive and constructive.
However, it seems some of my planned context is worth getting
moderated or banished.
1) Venus facts and what-ifs, or perhaps don’t ask and don’t tell.
Seems rather intellectually pathetic and otherwise downright odd that
so much of our mainstream media as offering science news and public
funded information can’t actively involve our own physically dark as
coal Selene/moon, or much less that of deductively discussing Venus,
as well as forbidden to share anything related to the Sirius star
system that could in any way link to our extensive cosmological
history of global ice-ages and subsequent warming trends, that’s in
addition to whatever we humans have only recently managed to pollute
and otherwise contribute or bestow upon our frail environment.
BradGuth
> Bwahahahahahahahahhahah ... loon!!
>
>
> news:799170d4-a2fb-42e4...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Venus facts and what-ifs, or perhaps don’t ask and don’t tell.
>
> Besides all of the mainstream usual data that we’re supposed to accept
> without doubts, fear or remorse, there’s other interpretations that
> might not be so discouraging or insurmountable as you might think.
>
> ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
2)
Venus facts and what-ifs, or perhaps don’t ask and don’t tell.
At least unlike the nearly stone-cold, irradiated and biologically
dead Mars, the far less inert planet Venus has its perfectly natural
and more than abundant forms of renewable energy to spare, and of its
geothermal active surface by rights shouldn’t be the least bit short
or deprived of any number of raw elements.
BradGuth
> Bwahahahahahahahahhahah ... loon!!
>
>
> news:799170d4-a2fb-42e4...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Venus facts and what-ifs, or perhaps don’t ask and don’t tell.
>
> Besides all of the mainstream usual data that we’re supposed to accept
> without doubts, fear or remorse, there’s other interpretations that
> might not be so discouraging or insurmountable as you might think.
>
> ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
3)
Venus facts and what-ifs, or perhaps don’t ask and don’t tell.
You don’t even have to be half as smart as a 5th grade physics wizard
in order to appreciate what nifty sorts of renewable energy can be
easily derived from a given atmospheric density of 65 kg/m3, as having
an unlimited supply of pressure differential that’s worth 4+ bar(60
psi)/km, plus that near surface thermal differential of 10 K(18F)/km
that’s not even specifically including whatever a natural geothermal
forced gas vent of seriously scorching hot co2 and S8 has to offer,
much less of whatever a fluid arch or gravity and contour flow of
various lava and magmatic/geo-excreted or geoplastic flows of mostly
thick silica muck should have to offer.
BradGuth
> Bwahahahahahahahahhahah ... loon!!
>
>
> news:799170d4-a2fb-42e4...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Venus facts and what-ifs, or perhaps don’t ask and don’t tell.
>
> Besides all of the mainstream usual data that we’re supposed to accept
> without doubts, fear or remorse, there’s other interpretations that
> might not be so discouraging or insurmountable as you might think.
>
> ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
4)
Venus facts and what-ifs, or perhaps don’t ask and don’t tell.
Unfortunately, for perhaps hundreds of millions of years Mars has had
darn little if any of this natural and renewable energy to draw upon,
and it’s nearly too far away from our passive sun for much of that IR
energy to work its magic for other than the limited daytime equator
tropics of Mars that more than freezes colder than dry ice solid by
night, and of getting our technology or supplied safely onto Mars is
costing us millions of hard earned public dollars per kg. This makes
little old we wonder why all the spendy and time consuming Mars fuss,
and otherwise why all the carefully orchestrated avoidance of our
extremely nearby and massive moon, plus otherwise Venus and nearby
Sirius. It seems with local/renewable energy is where nearly all
things become doable, whereas without energy it gets downright
discouraging if not worse.
BradGuth
> Bwahahahahahahahahhahah ... loon!!
>
>
> news:799170d4-a2fb-42e4...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Venus facts and what-ifs, or perhaps don’t ask and don’t tell.
>
> Besides all of the mainstream usual data that we’re supposed to accept
> without doubts, fear or remorse, there’s other interpretations that
> might not be so discouraging or insurmountable as you might think.
>
> ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
5)
Venus facts and what-ifs, or perhaps don’t ask and don’t tell.
It’s also rather interesting in the many complex and otherwise subtle
ways that our public newsgroups have so often gotten summarily trashed
by the mainstream damage-control clowns with little if any policing
effort by those capably in charge, exactly as though there’s something
dark and scary that has to be continually stalked, disqualified or
otherwise banished by the likes of spooks and other pretend-Atheist
rabbis that all seem to have the exact same killer bee swarm like
mindset, as taking actions oddly based upon their supporting of the
Old Testament.
BradGuth
> Bwahahahahahahahahhahah ... loon!!
>
>
> news:799170d4-a2fb-42e4...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Venus facts and what-ifs, or perhaps don’t ask and don’t tell.
>
> Besides all of the mainstream usual data that we’re supposed to accept
> without doubts, fear or remorse, there’s other interpretations that
> might not be so discouraging or insurmountable as you might think.
>
> ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
At least now I know what the problem was, that I'd included this MI5
freak instead of using the word "spooks" as what had been keeping the
full context of these 5 paragraphs from going through as a whole.
Apparently using the name of this MI5 freak that was trashing most
every newsgroup in sight is what's getting my work moderated or
banished, so I must apologize for thinking the heartless lords and
masters of Usenet/newsgroups are not doing their job, because
apparently they are, at least eventually long after the damage has
been done.
~ BG
BradGuth
Seems rather intellectually pathetic and otherwise downright odd that
so much of our mainstream media as offering science news and public
funded information can’t actively involve our own physically dark as
coal Selene/moon, or much less that of deductively discussing Venus,
as well as forbidden to share anything related to the Sirius star
system that could in any way link to our extensive cosmological
history of global ice-ages and subsequent warming trends, that’s in
addition to whatever we humans have only recently managed to pollute
and otherwise contribute or bestow upon our frail environment.
At least unlike the nearly stone-cold, irradiated and biologically
dead Mars, the far less inert planet Venus has its perfectly natural
and more than abundant forms of renewable energy to spare, and of its
geothermal active surface by rights shouldn’t be the least bit short
or deprived of any number of raw elements.
You don’t even have to be half as smart as a 5th grade physics wizard
in order to appreciate what nifty sorts of renewable energy can be
easily derived from a given atmospheric density of 65 kg/m3, as having
an unlimited supply of pressure differential that’s worth 4+ bar(60
psi)/km, plus that near surface thermal differential of 10 K(18F)/km
that’s not even specifically including whatever a natural geothermal
forced gas vent of seriously scorching hot co2 and S8 has to offer,
much less of whatever a fluid arch or gravity and contour flow of
various lava and magmatic/geo-excreted or geoplastic flows of mostly
thick silica muck should have to offer.
Unfortunately, for perhaps hundreds of millions of years Mars has had
darn little if any of this natural and renewable energy to draw upon,
and it’s nearly too far away from our passive sun for much of that IR
energy to work its magic for other than the limited daytime equator
tropics of Mars that more than freezes colder than dry ice solid by
night, and of getting our technology or supplied safely onto Mars is
costing us millions of hard earned public dollars per kg. This makes
little old we wonder why all the spendy and time consuming Mars fuss,
and otherwise why all the carefully orchestrated avoidance of our
extremely nearby and massive moon, plus otherwise Venus and nearby
Sirius. It seems with local/renewable energy is where nearly all
things become doable, whereas without energy it gets downright
discouraging if not worse.
It’s also rather interesting in the many complex and otherwise subtle
ways that our public newsgroups have so often gotten summarily trashed
by the mainstream damage-control clowns with little if any policing
effort by those capably in charge, exactly as though there’s something
dark and scary that has to be continually stalked, disqualified or
otherwise banished by the likes of spooks and other pretend-Atheist
rabbis that all seem to have the exact same killer bee swarm like
mindset, as taking actions oddly based upon their supporting of the
Old Testament that trys to insist that all off-world matter of mere
inert eye-candy, and nothing more.
Getting past this rather obvious faith-based gauntlet hasn’t been
easy, much less productive.
Hagar
On Sep 25, 6:35 am, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
> Like your Venusian airships ?????
> Bwahahahahahahahahhahah ... loon!!
>
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:799170d4-a2fb-42e4...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Venus facts and what-ifs, or perhaps don’t ask and don’t tell.
>
> Besides all of the mainstream usual data that we’re supposed to accept
> without doubts, fear or remorse, there’s other interpretations that
> might not be so discouraging or insurmountable as you might think.
>
> ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
Unlike yourself, I'll try to be topic positive and constructive.
However, it seems some of my planned context is worth getting
moderated or banished.
1) Venus facts and what-ifs, or perhaps don’t ask and don’t tell.
>Seems rather intellectually pathetic and otherwise downright odd that
>so much of our mainstream media as offering science news and public
>funded information can’t actively involve our own physically dark as
>coal Selene/moon,
Typically disjointed GuthBall sentence structure. So the Moon is dark
as coal?? Is that why it is so bright in the night sky?
Albedo is the reflectivity of an object, expressed in % of the incident
light,
in this case, the Sun.
Venus = 0.65
Earth = 0.37
Mars = 0.15
Moon = 0.12
Mercury = 0.11
So much for dark as coal, you lunatic.
>or much less that of deductively discussing Venus,
First off, Venus is permanently shrouded in very sulphorous clouds.
US satellites have successfully mapped its surface and a few
Russian probes (sondes) actually made it all the way to the
surface. They found an extremely hot and hostile environment. The
pressures are crushing and the atmosphere is poisenous. There may
be some volcanic activity, but it is not a place for humans ... ever.
>as well as forbidden to share anything related to the Sirius star
>system that could in any way link to our extensive cosmological
>history of global ice-ages and subsequent warming trends,
You lunatic!! Sirius is 8.6 LY from Earth and you say it holds sway
over our weather, and controls ice ages and global warming ???
You are totally insane.
>that’s in addition to whatever we humans have only recently managed
>to pollute and otherwise contribute or bestow upon our frail
>environment.
Your verbal diarrhea is causing most of the pollution, GuthBall.
Sanforized
> "BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Your verbal diarrhea is causing most of the pollution, GuthBall.
There are some people who are insane that they're
not worthy of the download time. Guth is one of
those. I highly recommend the use of killfiles
for people like him.
BradGuth
>
> Earth = 0.37
> Mars = 0.15
> Moon = 0.12
Our moon is actually on average more like 0.07 as viewed from Earth,
and perhaps 0.11~0.12 as viewed from lunar orbit.
>
> Mercury = 0.11
> So much for dark as coal, you lunatic.
Our Selene/moon is on average physically darker than Mercury.
Terrestrial coal is worth roughly 0.10 (that's actually pretty darn
close to 0.11)
>
> >or much less that of deductively discussing Venus,
>
> First off, Venus is permanently shrouded in very sulphorous clouds.
> US satellites have successfully mapped its surface and a few
> Russian probes (sondes) actually made it all the way to the
> surface. They found an extremely hot and hostile environment. The
> pressures are crushing and the atmosphere is poisenous. There may
> be some volcanic activity, but it is not a place for humans ... ever.
Speaking for yourself? What if the surface has untold mineral riches
plus unlimited energy by which to extract, process and export?
What is it with unlimited local energy and mineral riches that can't
be accomplished?
>
> >as well as forbidden to share anything related to the Sirius star
> >system that could in any way link to our extensive cosmological
> >history of global ice-ages and subsequent warming trends,
>
> You lunatic!! Sirius is 8.6 LY from Earth and you say it holds sway
> over our weather, and controls ice ages and global warming ???
> You are totally insane.
Every 105 and some odd thousand years it's actually fairly nearby, and
more frequently being the case as we go back in time. Sirius B also
used to be worth 6x solar mass, and likely had any number of planets
before the flash-over to becoming a white dwarf. Can you objectively
say that Earth or at least the likes of Venus didn't once belong to
Sirius B?
I think of Sirius as a powerful trinary star system, with our passive
sun as the nearly rogue third partner.
Are you saying that trinary star systems do not exist?
>
> >that’s in addition to whatever we humans have only recently managed
> >to pollute and otherwise contribute or bestow upon our frail
> >environment.
>
> Your verbal diarrhea is causing most of the pollution, GuthBall.
The kitchen and too much heat. Bite me.
~ BG
BradGuth
> Cactus Saul Reality is it was a butterfly flapping its wings over China
> that created that micro burst of wind that toppled those power poles in
> Arizona. go figure bert
The atmospheric debris of Mongolian sand storms and their soot of
nasty coal burning is what's physically polluting our atmosphere and
thus global warming us as much as everything else terrestrial
combined.
Good thing that most of us don't know about the 2e20 N/sec of
interbody orbital tidal force that has only been around us since the
last ice-age this 98.5% fluid Earth w/moon is ever going to see.
btw, every lunar cycle Earth gets a substantial comet tail load of
lunar sodium, and once every 19 months we also get dusted by way of
Venus and whatever spores the upper atmosphere of Venus might care to
share.
~ BG
BradGuth
One thing for certain, with Venus having been losing 20.5 w/m2 and
otherwise having such a nifty solar reflective atmosphere is why Venus
hasn't been getting itself any hotter.
Thus far, it seems that Venus has only been offering cooler near
surface temperatures as getting reported by way of each successive
mission, not that numerous lava and gas venting hot spots are not
active and in the process of creating or sustaining more of that
robust co2 and S8 saturated atmosphere.
The open terrain of Venus is in fact too humanly hot and nasty if you
are planning on exploring in the buff, and not all that much cooler by
season of nighttime, although sufficiently elevated terrain and
towards either pole might get you as cool as 600 K.
However, if technically outfitted or using a composite rigid airship
is where this toasty but nearly crystal dry surface environment is not
so insurmountable, and because of unlimited local energy is why your
Venus habitat has no limits as to its size or volume, and of however
icy cold you’d like to keep that interior is not a problem for those
of us at least half as smart as a 5th grader.
~ BG
BradGuth
By way of the ongoing research of others, it seems the atmospheric
microbes or spores of Venus may have been reaching Earth.
Possibly even the Venus version of water bears (tardigrades) could
have survived from having made the interplanetary trek. I'd tend to
think not, but I certainly wouldn't exclude the possibility.
~ BG
BradGuth
Besides all of the mainstream usual media data that we’re supposed to
accept without doubts, fear or remorse, there’s a few other viable
(meaning deductive) interpretations that might not be quite so
discouraging or insurmountable as you might otherwise think.
otherwise bashed and banished by the likes of spooks and other pretend-
Atheist rabbis that all seem to have the exact same killer bee swarm
like mindset, as taking actions oddly based upon their supporting of
the Old Testament that tries to insist that all off-world matter is of
nothing more than inert eye-candy.
Getting ourselves past this rather obvious faith-based status quo
gauntlet of intellectual and science hate hasn’t been easy, much less
research productive. So, if you can stand the heat of this kitchen,
feel free to constructively contribute whatever makes you a happy
camper.
BradGuth
One thing for certain, with the planet Venus having been losing or
giving off 20.5 w/m2 more thermal energy than our sun contributes, and
otherwise having such a nifty solar reflective and robust atmosphere,
is why Venus hasn't been getting itself any hotter.
Thus far, it seems that Venus has only been offering cooler near
surface temperatures as getting reported by way of each successive
mission, not that numerous active lava and gas venting hot spots are
not in the process of creating or sustaining more of that robust co2
and S8 saturated atmosphere.
The open surface terrain of Venus is in fact too humanly hot and nasty
if you are planning on exploring in the buff, as well as its thick
atmosphere not all that breathable and not even all that much cooler
by season of nighttime, although sufficiently elevated terrain and
towards either pole might get you as cool as 600 K (advisably still to
hot to safely piss on a hot rock).
However, if having been technically outfitted or using a composite
rigid airship is where this toasty but nearly crystal dry surface
environment is not so humanly insurmountable, and because of unlimited
local energy is why your Venus habitat has no limits as to its size or
volume, and of however icy cold you’d like to keep that interior is
not a problem for those of us at least half as smart as a 5th grader.
In spite of all the usual mainstream gauntlet of denials, evidence
exclusions, perpetual nayism and outright intellectual plus scientific
bigotry, when it comes right down to the positive/constrictive
interpretation as to what the planet Venus has to offer, I honestly
feel that I am the alpha and the omega as to whatever argument or
deductive interpretation there is about the planet Venus as having
hosted other intelligent life, be it of their own local evolution or
via those of ETs makes little if any difference in the way I’ve come
to understand the greater common good of this discovery. Terribly
sorry if that observationology interpretation offends your mindset.
~ BG
BradGuth
You can never have too many good ideas. Even bad ones tend to
eventually lead us down the better path of understanding and
discovery. The trick is not to make the same mistake(s) or otherwise
to cover up whatever previous errors in judgment.
Why can’t multi milliballoons of basalt filled with H2, along with
basalt fibers and a reasonably good enough high temperature binder or
merely that of metallic plasma applied coatings in thin layers create
the sorts of sandwich composite materials needed for the rigid
airships and most other structural requirements of Venus?
HIGH TEMPERATURE INORGANIC BINDERS
http://www.aremco.com/PDFs/A11_06.pdf
Foam insulation: GLASS VS. CERAMIC MICROSPHERES
http://www.cumingcorp.com/pdf/OMAE2002.pdf
Metal Coating
http://www.anatechusa.com/Metal_Coating/default.html
Metallic Ceramic Coatings
http://www.amr-coatings.com/metallic_ceramic.html
With certain configurations of these milliballoons and fibers of
basalt it’s entirely possible to obtain an insulation coefficient of .
0009765 or that of R-1024 per m/m2, and perhaps a structural composite
version of R-512 or thermal transfer coefficient of .00195 per meter/
m2 that still doesn’t hardly weigh anything, but represents a great
deal of compressive and tensile strength without ever having to hardly
import a damn thing.
Only significant requirement for processing basalt into the likes of
such tough little H2 filled milliballoons and fibers of 4.84 Gpa is
that of energy, and Venus makes that rather easy, not to mention the
0.9 gravity and what one can manage to do with 65 kg/m3 buoyancy.
Getting our technology safely (no matters how robust and hefty) onto
the surface of Venus shouldn’t be 1% the problems of doing such with
Mars.
To an intelligent species of ET (meaning us and anyone else half as
smart as a 5th grader), the planet Venus that comes to within 100 fold
the distance of our moon is a piece of cake, with lots of nifty
frostings and goodies inside. I’d swear that SquarePants SpongBob or
most anyone from Sesame Street has enough smarts to accomplish Venus,
so what’s wrong with all the other clowns in our DARPA?
BradGuth
The physically wild and otherwise robust global thermal and many other
physical dynamics of the Venus atmosphere does have a rather terrific
thermal differential between the seasons of daytime and nighttime, and
even the near surface atmosphere is measurably cooler by night.
However, since the vast majority of the thermal dynamics of Venus is
clearly geothermal driven is why there's not a great deal of day/night
surface temperature differential, unless you'd care to include either
north/south pole and take surface elevations into account.
As I'd indicated so many times before, apparently I am the best
available alpha and the omega of whatever the planet Venus is all
about, whereas the untruths so frequently spouted from between the
intellectual butt-cheeks of others in charge of sustaining and
otherwise enforcing our mainstream status quo at all cost and without
remorse, as such isn't hardly worth squat.
The near surface vertical atmospheric pressure differential along with
a fairly good deal of vertical thermal differential alone is by itself
worth all the renewable energy tea in China, so to speak, not to
mention multiple geothermal gas vents and active lava and mud flows
that can be found in more places than McCane has spendy homes (each
with a fleet of spendy transportation), Muslims that are supposedly
hiding WMD or OBL has places to safely live to a ripe old age. About
the only thing Venus has less of is ways of rigging elections in order
to favor republicans.
~ BG
BradGuth
our NASA isn't God, then perhaps you should never get yourself out of
bed in the first place.
If you can manage to deductively think for yourself, then feel free to
give this topic your best positive/constructive shot, that is unless
you'd rather worship pagan gods and forever pay homage to their army
of brown-nosed minions.
~ BG
BradGuth
Actually, there’s really nothing all that pixel secret worthy or new
to report about Venus, especially since the best available raw pixels
of 75 meters resolution are those of nearly 3D radar imaging, and of
an honest PhotoShop enlargement that can be fully reversed and
otherwise replicated to your hearts content, that can interpret such
things as 25 meters/pixel as accomplished by a 3 fold resample/
enlargement process, or even possibly as great as 9 fold taken from
the preferred 225 m/pixel GIF format as most easily cropped and saved
as a JPEG working format, is what seems rather interesting and worth
doing if you’re at least half as smart as a 5th grader.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
As rather easily PhotoShop pushed by a factor of merely 3X for
extracting the 75 m/pixel resolution is more than good enough for
those of us without basic observationology skills. But then no matter
what the deductive interpretation doesn’t hardly matter to the
traditional mindset that’s forever in denial.
Oddly our NASA claims being merely the scientific exploration bus
driver, and yet they insist upon their having the one and only final/
last word as to published data having their stamp of approval, or else
mainstream media gets a whole lot more than kicked in the butt.
On behalf of the same thermal dynamics and laws of physics that
applies towards our safely accomplishing Mars that’s so far away and
more often frozen below that frost of dry ice, is also what applies
towards accomplishing Venus, including the applied technologies of
converting local elements into those we frail humans can directly
utilize, as well as including the use of rebreathers, water recycling
and OveGlove suits.
Except that in doing Venus there’s already existing infrastructure
plus more spare/surplus energy than any or all of us could shake our
combined fists full of burning sticks at (so to speak), whereas the
absolutely terrific buoyancy as well as being rather nicely shielded
against solar, cosmic and local radiation via the thick and otherwise
robust atmosphere is what simply makes the 0.9 gravity even better.
And since the orbit of Venus gets nearly to within 100 fold the
distance of our moon is another good reason why the to/from package
deal is also more easily accomplished as long as basic retrothrusting
and aerobraking are fully utilized.
However, unlike the near vacuum of Mars, whereas instead with a robust
composite rigid airship we can nearly forever cruise about Venus
without ever having to set a human foot on that geothermal heated
surface.
BradGuth
“We're ignorant of life in the universe. We only have one planet that
serves as an example and in science it's not good to derive
information from a sample size of one.” / David Grinspoon
Instead of being in perpetual denial of a typical naysayer and a topic
spoil sport that yourself and most other mainstream rusemasters really
are, whereas I’d merely look at the cold or warm hard facts of
physics, and otherwise try to work with the best available science
(including observationology).
If ever ETs were out and about looking for some nifty planet options
of pillaging and looting action, I would tend to recommend an oasis
planet as having somewhat less gravity than Earth, having all the
expected minerals and raw elements of Earth (except a whole lot more
accessible), along with having unlimited local energy that's fully
renewable, and offering a rather nifty atmospheric buoyancy to boot
that's also good for protecting their frail DNA from solar, cosmic and
local radiation, not to mention having an already established
intelligent infrastructure that's perfectly rational and perhaps even
usable as is.
Gee whiz folks, I wonder what extremely nearby planet would qualify.
BradGuth
> On Sep 25, 12:21 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Why is the planet Venus so Usenet/newsgroup topic and author taboo/
nondisclosure rated?
Venus facts shouldn’t be so gosh darn hot-potato like, even if we are
baking that potato in less than a minute is what makes Venus microwave
ovens suck.
~ BG
BradGuth
I'm still here, and don't try to suggest that my research doesn't
count.
btw, if you're a 5th grader, you are smarter than 99.9% of Usenet.
~ BG
BradGuth
planet of wealth as having somewhat less gravity than Earth, having
all the expected minerals and raw elements of Earth (except a whole
lot more accessible), along with having unlimited local energy that's
fully renewable, and offering a rather nifty atmospheric buoyancy to
boot that's also good for protecting their frail DNA from solar,
cosmic and local radiation, not to mention having an already
established intelligent infrastructure that's perfectly rational and
perhaps even usable as is might go a long ways towards making such a
planet desirable.
Gee whiz folks, I wonder what extremely nearby planet would qualify.
Remember that if you’re smart enough to accomplish interplanetary
travels, that whatever technology for surviving on remote planets is
not an issue. Instead, what’s at stake or of primary consideration is
the mineral and local energy by which to extract, process and export
whatever (the same as can be said of our Selene/moon).
Instead of our being in perpetual denial of a typical status quo
naysayer and a topic spoil-sport that many and perhaps even yourself
and most other mainstream rusemasters really are, whereas I’d merely
look at the cold or warm and hard facts of physics, and otherwise try
to work within the best available science (including observationology)
in order to deductively interpret each planet on its own merits.
foolsrushin.
> Venus facts and what-ifs, or perhaps don’t ask and don’t tell.
> Besides all of the mainstream usual data that we’re suppose
> without doubts, fear or remorse, there’s other interpretations that
> might not be so discouraging or insurmountable as you might think.
> ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
Brad, you are really intelligent, but you are so effing self-centered
and full of your own covictions that I could easily find myself
supporting your opponents, even if only as an experiment!
You might do better by finding out, when you can manage to forget your
vast negative ego for a few minutes of clicking, that people like
Richard Hoagland and Mile Bara largely agree with you!
You don't know why, though, do you? All you do is whine?
Enough of it! Come out! What you have done would never have occurred
to me, Brad!
I dare say you will conclude Hoagland and Bara are even more stoopid
than yourself, and then let us know how you devised the measurement.
http://www.enterprisemission.com/
--
foolsrushin.
foolsrushin.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.planets.venus/topics?hl=en&lnk
--
Your planet, Brad?
Explain!
--
foolsrushin.
foolsrushin.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-some-properties-of-venus-atmosphere.htm
I read a science fiction novel in which the occupants of intelligent
baloons floated above the surface of Venus or perhaps the baloons were
in themselves intelligent.
Is that where you got it, Brad? Anyway, why should we care?
--
foolsrushin.
BradGuth
> On 25 Sep, 08:21, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Venus facts and what-ifs, or perhaps don’t ask and don’t tell.
> > Besides all of the mainstream usual data that we’re suppose
> >.to accept
> > without doubts, fear or remorse, there’s other interpretations that
> > might not be so discouraging or insurmountable as you might think.
> > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
>
> Brad, you are really intelligent, but you are so effing self-centered
> and full of your own covictions that I could easily find myself
> supporting your opponents, even if only as an experiment!
>
> You might do better by finding out, when you can manage to forget your
> vast negative ego for a few minutes of clicking, that people like
> Richard Hoagland and Mile Bara largely agree with you!
>
> You don't know why, though, do you? All you do is whine?
Returning the warm and fuzzy favor of topic/author stalking and
bashings for the sheer sport of it, is not whining.
Sharing and/or contemplating the best available truth(s) is not
whining.
Of my asking questions and expecting rational answers via others that
so often claim to be all-knowing, is not whining.
>
> Enough of it! Come out! What you have done would never have occurred
> to me, Brad!
>
> I dare say you will conclude Hoagland and Bara are even more stoopid
> than yourself, and then let us know how you devised the measurement.
>
> http://www.enterprisemission.com/
> --
> foolsrushin.
Your mainstream Zionist/Nazi mindset is noted. I shall use the
"foolsrushin denial" as a basis of our measurement, whereas anything
you have to contribute is either a lie or isn't worth squat. At least
William Mook (aka wizard of Oz) was capable of digging up and sharing
plausible notions that could work for Earth and other planets,
including Venus. What's your excuse?
If Richard Hoagland and Mile Bara agree with me, then why haven't they
shared anything or having asked a single question? It's not exactly
like I'm hiding.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
~ BG
BradGuth
You never have cared about much of anything that matters. Can you
give us examples of what "foolsrushin" has ever cared about and having
constructively contributed towards resolving?
~ BG
BradGuth
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.planets.venus/topics?hl=en&lnk
> --
> Your planet, Brad?
>
> Explain!
> --
> foolsrushin.
Since yourself and most others of your mainstream Zionist/Nazi kind
don't want myself or anyone else to go anywhere near Venus, I figure
it's up for grabs.
Venus facts and what-ifs, or perhaps don’t ask and don’t tell.
Besides all of the mainstream usual data that we’re supposed to accept
zookumar yelubandi
> On Oct 18, 11:17 pm, "foolsrushin." <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 19 Oct, 06:36, "foolsrushin." <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >http://www.enterprisemission.com/
> > > --
> > > foolsrushin.
> > http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-some-properties-of-venus-atmosphere.htm
> > I read a science fiction novel in which the occupants of intelligent
> > baloons floated above the surface of Venus or perhaps the baloons were
> > in themselves intelligent.
> > Is that where you got it, Brad? Anyway, why should we care?
> > --
> > foolsrushin.
> You never have cared about much of anything that matters. Can you
> give us examples of what "foolsrushin" has ever cared about and having
> constructively contributed towards resolving?
> ~ BG
John has shown that he cares about perhaps the most important
thing that matters today, perhaps even more important than the economy,
namely, the truth behind the 9/11/2001 attacks. Indeed, the widescale
corruptions in the economy can be better understood by understanding the
true nature of the 9/11/2001 attacks. While other ROM regulars have
chosen to run and hide from the topic, and others still, to lie about
it; John has met the matter squarely on. How about you, Brad? Do you
care about the truth behind 9/11/2001? If so, why did you take the
curious stance a few months ao that the twin towers collapsed due to
shoddy construction as opposed to controlled demolition, the real causal
factor? Please enlighten us about your stance.
To engender confidence in one's ability to understand and
communicate distal matters on Venus, one must first show an ability to
understand and communicate proximal matters on Earth.
-zookumar-
ps: "www.infowars.com"
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Googletype "ethericity, Lindemann" and change the world. Capture
lightning in a bottle and say "seeya" to fossil fuels, nuclear fuels,
wind fuels, water fuels, and leave solar energy alone so it can do its
work on Chlorophyll P680 and put some green back on this good earth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Natural Philosopher
>
>
>
> John has shown that he cares about perhaps the most important
> thing that matters today, perhaps even more important than the economy,
> namely, the truth behind the 9/11/2001 attacks.
For that blatant bit of idiocy, my friend, its the killfile for you.
Right now the most important thing is the economy, followed by climate
change.
The truth about 9/11 is well known, at least as far as who actually did
it and how, .
Who may or may not have stood behind them, in the ultimate analysis is a
moot point.
I.e who is funding Islamic militancy, and why..and how connected they
are to other movers and shakers in the global theatre.
Discuss THAT and its an interesting story.
Beating on about exactly what happened, is a blind alley.
Enjoy yourself there, but don't bother my brain cells.
zookumar yelubandi
> zookumar yelubandi wrote:
> > John has shown that he cares about perhaps the most important
> > thing that matters today, perhaps even more important than the economy,
> > namely, the truth behind the 9/11/2001 attacks.
> For that blatant bit of idiocy, my friend, its the killfile for you.
There are some that can't handle the truth. You, no friend of
mine, are one of them. 9/11/2001 offers a window through which to gaze
at the mechanisms of the world, and at the skunks that have manouevred
the important levers for some centuries now: military levers, economic
levers, communication levers, educaion levers, behavorial levers, human
resource levers, etc.
> Right now the most important thing is the economy, followed by climate
> change.
To understand both, one must understand the manipulation of the
levers. Failure to understand this manipulation leads to wild goose
chases and false solutions. FACT: the economy has been constructed as
a ponzi scheme to funnel wealth upwards to the skunks that manipulate
the levers. But one has to know the history of money to properly
understand this, from the time money displaced bartering as a means of
value exchange, to its evolution into a magic wand for the moneylenders
as they seized control of the people's wealth via fiat currency and
sundry black market practices and schemes ... not to mention its role in
co-opting governments the world over via privaely controlled central
banks and subsequent purchases of the various political machineries,
etc. etc.
As for climate change, anthropogenic CO2 emissions represent
some 4% of the total CO2 emissions; global warming today is largely due
to the variable solar cycle and is only minimally impacted by man. It's
a real event, true enough, but remains largely beyond our ability to
control it. Something that we can control, however, is industrial
pollution; but there, industrial profit lines have overwhelmed any real
effort to manage the pollution ... and this applies to all the major
industries: petroleum (oil and plastics), pharmaceutical (toxic chemical
waste), clothing (dyes); printing (inks), appliances (freons),
military (depleted uranium), etc. As well, there's the engineered
destruction of the atmosphere, such as chemtrails, put out by the skunks
as they seek to control the very air we breathe, with the end goal of
procuring our compliance. True, population growth has put stresses on
land and sea management, and this, in turn, impacts the climate (via the
plankton chain, and via deforestation, for example) ... and this is an
important problem that needs to be addressed. But know the skunks
working the levers in order to know the first steps of the solution.
> The truth about 9/11 is well known, at least as far as who actually did
> it and how, .
Yes, it is. of course, the Islamic patsies had there *small*
role to play as well.
> Who may or may not have stood behind them, in the ultimate analysis is a
> moot point.
In the ultimate analysis it is *the* only meaningful point. For
those who orchestrated it all, i.e. are directly responsible, are *not*
the Islamic patsies periodically paraded out for show by the new world
order criminal establishment, but the establishment itself. And this
establishment can be traced back to the alpha-skunk moneylenders of
centuries past; with the central banking elites of today being the
chosen heirs to the blood throne. That's a hard documented fact, no
friend of mine. The sooner you realize this, the better off you'll be,
for people the world over are finally clue-ing in to the origins of the
bulk of human misery in the past few centuries ... and they are on the
cusp of revolution. Whether that revolution will be peaceful or
violent, who knows ... who can really tell? But without 9/11/2001 to
open the shutters to reality, the charade might have lasted
indefinitely. But it is over now, for all intents and purposes.
> I.e who is funding Islamic militancy, and why..and how connected they
> are to other movers and shakers in the global theatre.
> Discuss THAT and its an interesting story.
> Beating on about exactly what happened, is a blind alley.
That is precisely what and who we are discussing. The shakers
and the movers. But in order to identify them properly - and completely
- 9/11/2001 offers itself as an invaluable resource ... IMO, the most
valuable resource. Get the facts of 9/11/2001 wrong; and you're doomed
to transit through life in a cage, a bonded man.
> Enjoy yourself there, but don't bother my brain cells.
Then don't pose as "The Natural Philosopher". I expect some
integrity and intellectual depth from anyone bold enough to don said
philosopher's titular robes.
BradGuth
My stance is that 9/11 was at least indirectly orchestrated, and
otherwise provoked by the Bush administration and by those of his
faith-based puppet masters.
Those twin towers were also floor by floor overloaded to the near
breaking point, but oddly fully insured as though up to structural
code/spec. Clearly the rich and powerful get richer and more powerful
at the trauma and demise of others.
~ BG
BradGuth
> zookumar yelubandi wrote:
>
> > John has shown that he cares about perhaps the most important
> > thing that matters today, perhaps even more important than the economy,
> > namely, the truth behind the 9/11/2001 attacks.
>
> For that blatant bit of idiocy, my friend, its the killfile for you.
>
> Right now the most important thing is the economy, followed by climate
> change.
>
> The truth about 9/11 is well known, at least as far as who actually did
> it and how, .
>
> Who may or may not have stood behind them, in the ultimate analysis is a
> moot point.
In that case, those physics, science and banking smart Zionist/Nazis
behind Hitler is yet another one of your "moot points".
~ BG
BradGuth
Venus might as well be an exoplanet.
Epsilon Eridani w/exoplanet of 1.6 Jupiter mass, orbiting at 3.4 AU
from a slightly smaller and cooler version than our sun, as having a
kind of newish and passive star that’s making it likely for life to
exist/coexist on such a planet, though perhaps more than likely upon
one of its moons. Other smaller planets should by rights exist.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/starlog/grm34.html#c4
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/starlog/strclos.html#c0
Too bad we can’t even explore our Selene/moon, much less Venus or for
that matter any other local planet or moon in person.
Hagar
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3313da27-c71c-4f06...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
And you get this valuable inside information from the same folks who
presented you with your "Moon Landing Hoax" evidence, GuthBall ???
Say, is there anything factual that you believe in, something with so much
overwhelming evidence that is beyond the realm of dispute, such as the fact
that you are a mentally challenged rectum (I think the colloquial term is
retarded asshole).
zookumar yelubandi
> > John has shown that he cares about perhaps the most important
> > thing that matters today, perhaps even more important than the economy,
> > namely, the truth behind the 9/11/2001 attacks. Indeed, the widescale
> > corruptions in the economy can be better understood by understanding the
> > true nature of the 9/11/2001 attacks. While other ROM regulars have
> > chosen to run and hide from the topic, and others still, to lie about
> > it; John has met the matter squarely on. How about you, Brad? Do you
> > care about the truth behind 9/11/2001? If so, why did you take the
> > curious stance a few months ao that the twin towers collapsed due to
> > shoddy construction as opposed to controlled demolition, the real causal
> > factor? Please enlighten us about your stance.
> > To engender confidence in one's ability to understand and
> > communicate distal matters on Venus, one must first show an ability to
> > understand and communicate proximal matters on Earth.
> > -zookumar-
> > ps: "www.infowars.com"
> > --
>
> My stance is that 9/11 was at least indirectly orchestrated, and
> otherwise provoked by the Bush administration and by those of his
> faith-based puppet masters.
Almost there. The facts, in gestalt, show conclusively that
9/11/2001 was an inside job. No tepid culpabilities here.
> Those twin towers were also floor by floor overloaded to the near
> breaking point, but oddly fully insured as though up to structural
> code/spec. Clearly the rich and powerful get richer and more powerful
> at the trauma and demise of others.
> ~ BG
Almost there. Fully insured because they *were* up to
structural code/spec. After the respective planes hit, the structures
quickly redistributed their weight and held, as designed. Plastic
deformation analysis (by Gordon Ross) further shows that there was
insufficient total input energy to effect collapse continuation beyond
0.02 seconds and before the completion of the 3% shortening phase, i.e.
before the apearance of buckling points:
"http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf"
beginExcerpt******************************
The energy balance of the collapse moves into deficit during the plastic
shortening phase of the first impacted columns showing that there would
be insufficient energy available from the released potential energy of
the upper section to satisfy all of the energy demands of the collision.
The analysis shows that despite the assumptions made in favour of
collapse continuation, vertical movement of the falling section would be
arrested prior to completion of the 3% shortening phase of the impacted
columns, and within 0.02 seconds after impact
***************************************end
... this effectively means that any gravity-driven "collapse"
would end almost immediately after it began (within 20 milliseconds).
And that supports the observed behavior of both buildings immediately
after their respective impacts, e.g. they remained standing.
The linchpin here, of course, is the law of conservation of
linear momentum. There is no getting around the fact that what was
observed (e.g. near free fall collapse) is strictly prohibited by this
law. For a quick illustration of this law, consider an accelerating
freight train plowing into the back of a stationary freight train two
and a half times its size. The acceleraing freight train will not
continue to accelerate after impact! Yet that is exactly what the
neoArabian fabulars of Osama bin Laden and the Nineteen saudi Sheep
would have you believe (with their constantly mutating gravity-induced
collapse models).
Stitching it all together, from physics theory to the observed
result, there is zero doubt that the structures were built solidly and
designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner crash. The argument of
shoddy construction simply has no legs to stand on. So allow it to sit.
FWIW, you are correct about your "Zionist/Nazi" characterization
of the central bankers; they are the *puppeteers* pulling the criminal
strings. They funded not only Hitler, but the *puppets* Lenin, Stalin,
Mao, etc. ... Honecker, Menghistu, Marcos, Saddam, Ceaucescu, Noriega,
Castro, etc ..., and, of course, what axis of Machivaellian praxis would
be complete without mention of Cheney/Bush?
BradGuth
Those structures were at best marginal, and otherwise floor by floor
overloaded to the point of when damaged they had little reserve. It
would not have taken all that much extra/artificial help (in addition
to the aircraft and subsequent fire imposed damage) to cause their
demise.
Where were the Zionist/Nazi Rothschilds hiding out in all of this 9/11
fiasco?
How many of their brokers and offshore bankers were terminated, if
any?
~ BG
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I've already been there and done that a good thousand times. It is
yourself that can't add it up or connect the dots. Remember that I'm
just the messenger that obviously you and others of your kind want to
kill.
~ BG
zookumar yelubandi
> > The linchpin here, of course, is the law of conservation of
> > linear momentum. There is no getting around the fact that what was
> > observed (e.g. near free fall collapse) is strictly prohibited by this
> > law. For a quick illustration of this law, consider an accelerating
> > freight train plowing into the back of a stationary freight train two
> > and a half times its size. The acceleraing freight train will not
> > continue to accelerate after impact! Yet that is exactly what the
> > neoArabian fabulars of Osama bin Laden and the Nineteen saudi Sheep
> > would have you believe (with their constantly mutating gravity-induced
> > collapse models).
> > Stitching it all together, from physics theory to the observed
> > result, there is zero doubt that the structures were built solidly and
> > designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner crash. The argument of
> > shoddy construction simply has no legs to stand on. So allow it to sit.
> > FWIW, you are correct about your "Zionist/Nazi" characterization
> > of the central bankers; they are the *puppeteers* pulling the criminal
> > strings. They funded not only Hitler, but the *puppets* Lenin, Stalin,
> > Mao, etc. ... Honecker, Menghistu, Marcos, Saddam, Ceaucescu, Noriega,
> > Castro, etc ..., and, of course, what axis of Machivaellian praxis would
> > be complete without mention of Cheney/Bush?
> Those structures were at best marginal, and otherwise floor by floor
> overloaded to the point of when damaged they had little reserve. It
> would not have taken all that much extra/artificial help (in addition
> to the aircraft and subsequent fire imposed damage) to cause their
> demise.
There is no further debate on this point. The LAW OF
CONSERVATION OF LINEAR MOMENTUM prohibits any collapse due to fire and
gravity alone. There must be something more in the equation, e.g. to
remove the structural resistance and render the near free fall collapse
times that were observed. The buildings stood well beyond their
respective plane-impact times; that alone speaks to the robust nature of
both structures, i.e. plenty of reserve strength through weight
redistribution. Shoddy construction is *out* of the equation on that
basis alone.
> Where were the Zionist/Nazi Rothschilds hiding out in all of this 9/11
> fiasco?
Also Rockefellers, Warburgs, Morgans, Schiffs, Bushes, etc. ...
the list is long.
> How many of their brokers and offshore bankers were terminated, if
> any?
> ~ BG
Interesting question.
BradGuth
You do realize that a pancake by pancake (meaning floor by floor)
situation of each floor easily taking out the one below isn't so far
fetched, especially when most every floor had been overloaded, and it
seems those truss elements were of nothing to brag about. Not that it
wasn't just as easily given a little extra artificial help.
Collecting insurance was just as bogus and frightful as anything,
although the rich and powerful do tend to look after their own kind,
just like the way Zionist/Nazis looked after Hitler as long as it
seemed as though they were on the winning side.
~ BG
foolsrushin.
Brad, look at the following. Note in particular the astonishing
resilence of these steel structures - even post-thermatite blasts!
Sanforized wrote:
> Henry wrote:
>> Philip Holman wrote:
>>> Nobody is going to waste time on this because of a few crackpots.
>> Many crackpots believe that reading, thinking, questioning
>> conspiracy theories as "explained" by their ruling masters,
>> and the rational discussion of facts and evidence are all a
>> "waste of time"....
> Most of the sane people of the world accepted what
> they saw with their own eyes, and moved on with their
> lives and interests.
What we saw with our own eyes proves that the real terrorists
have not yet been brought to justice - unless you believe that
the Fearsome Bearded Cave Man and his helpers rigged WTC7 for
demolition and shut down NORAD on 9-11-01....
Here are some photos of WTC4, which was much closer to the towers
than WTC7, and was completely gutted by severe fires and partially
crushed by heavy impacts.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc4des1.html
This photo of WTC4 really demonstrates the incredible strength of
steel framed buildings.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/bjh/14.jpg
Here are some photos of WTC5 & 6 after the tower demolitions.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzpo1.html
WTC7 was a tall narrow 47 story steel framed skyscraper.
It was not hit by a plane.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture1.jpg
This illustration shows the location of the various WTC buildings
as well as the range of debris impact.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/collateral.html
Here are photos of WTC7's "inferno".
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7fire1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html
Here is a video of WTC7's picture perfect controlled demolition.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg
Here are more videos of WTC7's demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
We're still waiting for followers of the "official" conspiracy
theory to provide us with a logical explanation other than
controlled demolition for the fact that the buildings closest to
the towers remained standing, while WTC7's massive hurricane
resistant steel frame suddenly disintegrated and dropped at virtual
free fall speed and perfect symmetry. Limited, isolated fires can
not possibly cause such a failure. In fact, no steel framed building
has ever collapsed due to fire. Not one. Ever. Controlled demolition
is the only possible cause of WTC7's free fall speed and symmetric
drop. Even Bush's FEMA was forced to admit the following:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building
to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel
fuel
on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best
hypothesis
has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research,
investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."
More expert analysis on the demolition of WTC7 can be found here:
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
This is what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging
infernos for hours on end.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
As you can see, these steel framed structures suffered gradual
deformation, but nothing even remotely close to a total symmetric
and free fall speed collapse - and those fires were far hotter
and of much longer duration than the small, isolated fires in
WTC7.
Twin Towers:
The massive reserve strength designed into the steel frames of
the towers could not possibly have been overcome by the force
of gravity alone. The fact that it was exceeded to such an
extreme degree that the undamaged steel frame offered no
measurable resistance, proves conclusively that the lower
structures were destroyed before being impacted by the upper
structures.
From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690
"The Twin Towers and Why They Fell
It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers
in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award
judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that
demonstrates
the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest
contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that
"the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to
resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of
special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns
were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on
these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure
occurs.
More on the incredible strength of the towers can be found here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
"There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even
greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings.
According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers'
design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well
as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and
the building would still be strong enough to withstand a
100-mile-per-hour wind. 3"
The massive steel frames of the towers were far too strong to
collapse only under their own weight. That's been proved through
physics, and that's why no other steel framed buildings have ever
collapsed that way unless they were demolished. See Gordon Ross'
research paper on momentum transfer here:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
As common sense would dictate, even if all the perimeter and
core columns near the top of the tower were somehow destroyed
simultaneously so that the top 20 stories or so dropped onto the
remaining undamaged frame, after some bending and compression,
the collapse would have stopped, or the upper block would have
fallen off to the side. Gordon Ross proves that with physics.
The official conspiracy requires us to believe that falling
directly =through= the massive undamaged steel frames, including
the 47 interconnected central core columns:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
provided little more resistance than air. This is proved by
the fact that debris falling outside the towers hit the ground
about the same time as the debris falling through the towers.
Making the government's conspiracy theory even more implausible,
is the fact that the steel at the top of the towers was over
ten times lighter and thinner than the undamaged steel in the
lower section. Look at the massive core column cross section in
the bottom photo.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
The official conspiracy theory says that crushing 47 of those
columns, all interconnected with even more steel, =and= destroying
all the perimeter columns, =and= "pancaking" all the floors, and
stairways, produced about the same kinetic friction as falling
though air. That, of course, is not physically possible.
Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the South
Tower.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html
Notice that the corners are curved, as the block's internal
destruction is already taking place. If it had not been destroyed
through demolition, it would have continued to rotate and fall off
the building as an intact block. Also, notice that the block is
tilting towards the corner where it was impacted. The opposite
corner was undamaged by impact or fire, as proved by photo
evidence.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html
As the top section of that tower is rotating, the high strength,
fire resistant perimeter columns on one side of the building are
being compressed, and on the opposite side, where the building
was not damaged by fire or impact, the weight above them is greatly
reduced.
Why do you think the undamaged steel perimeter frame with reduced
weight above it is exploding and collapsing at the same rate as
the fire and impact damaged side that has most of the weight of the
rotating block on it? Seems more than a little odd, doesn't it?
Here's
some information on the perimeter columns.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
Now watch this video:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/wtc-2_explodes.avi
That's not gradual bending and buckling of an over heated steel
frame. Those are huge explosions not unlike those we see in a
controlled demolition. Keep in mind that this is at the onset of
the collapse, so nothing is falling quickly at this point.
More good information on 9-11 can be found here:
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
--
They must find it difficult - those who have taken authority as the
Truth, rather than Truth as the authority. - G. Massey
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://stj911.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.911truth.org
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://stj911.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.911truth.org
Ever wonder who benefits from the 700 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21
"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of
...
read more »
--
foolsrushin.
BradGuth
did the same thing, although our GW Bush and his republican Mafia has
been doing one better than Hitler.
~ BG
> ...
>
> read more »
foolsrushin.
> Our government tells us only what they think we need to know. Hitler
> did the same thing, although our GW Bush and his republican Mafia has
> been doing one better than Hitler.
http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/hist/fire.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
What is frightening, is that it worked - as now!
[snip of all]
Brad, I think it really great that you yourself and Zook are in
correspondence, even if not always corresponding! You are both highly
intelligent, independent - and VERY creative minds, and I don't mean
in the sense of creative accounting! We have seen enough of that
recently! Unorthodox? Sure! But that's what the world needs, perhaps
more than ever before.
One of the nicest things I have seen around this place for a long
time!
I hope you'll both read Hoagland and Bara, 'Dark Mission: the Secret
History of NASA' - and support them, if yo think them right! I do!
--
foolsrushin.
BradGuth
> On 23 Oct, 03:59, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Our government tells us only what they think we need to know. Hitler
> > did the same thing, although our GW Bush and his republican Mafia has
> > been doing one better than Hitler.
>
>
> What is frightening, is that it worked - as now!
>
> [snip of all]
>
> Brad, I think it really great that you yourself and Zook are in
> correspondence, even if not always corresponding! You are both highly
> intelligent, independent - and VERY creative minds, and I don't mean
> in the sense of creative accounting! We have seen enough of that
> recently! Unorthodox? Sure! But that's what the world needs, perhaps
> more than ever before.
>
> One of the nicest things I have seen around this place for a long
> time!
>
> I hope you'll both read Hoagland and Bara, 'Dark Mission: the Secret
> History of NASA' - and support them, if yo think them right! I do!
> --
> foolsrushin.
Unfortunately, it's the likes of brown-nosed clowns like rabbi Saul
Levy doing their usual public crowd damage-control via topic/author
stalking and bashing, that's making independent media look the other
way. Within the new and improved Zionist/Nazi (aka republican Mafia)
laws of our Patriot Act should by rights make such actions qualified
as national terrorism, and those folks should be rounded up and
treated none better than foreign POW.
~ BG
BradGuth
Truth is one of those "eye of the beholder" things. If you're in
charge is where whatever truth doesn't hardly count.
History is recorded by the rich and powerful, and they are also in
charge of enforcing that interpretation of history as representing the
one and only truth.
”Whoever controls the past, controls the future” / George Orwell
~ BG
BradGuth
Perhaps we've overlooked the amount of steam infrastructure that each
structure had incorporated, with perhaps several hundred tonnes of
steam filled piping and multiple accumulators throughout (none of
which added anything to the structural integrity of those buildings).
~ BG
BradGuth
> Venus facts and what-ifs, or perhaps don’t ask and don’t tell.
>
> without doubts, fear or remorse, there’s other interpretations that
> might not be so discouraging or insurmountable as you might think.
>
> ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
There is intelligent looking infrastructure on Venus, and there is
physics and otherwise perfectly good science in support of this
interpretation. Meanwhile our nation and much of the world has been
going down the toilet because of this covered up matter of fact about
Venus is a global thing, that which the rich and powerful wish to keep
to themselves.
At least I can't muster up any better reasons for the way this
research of the planet Venus has taken such a turn for the worse, as
though it's the only essential damage-control game in town. However,
it seems our physically dark and naked Selene/moon isn't much better
off than Venus, perhaps for more of the same taboo/nondisclosure
status quo or bust reasons.
~ BG
zookumar yelubandi
> On 23 Oct, 03:59, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Our government tells us only what they think we need to know. Hitler
> > did the same thing, although our GW Bush and his republican Mafia has
> > been doing one better than Hitler.
>
> http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/hist/fire.html
>
> What is frightening, is that it worked - as now!
>
> [snip of all]
>
> Brad, I think it really great that you yourself and Zook are in
> correspondence, even if not always corresponding! You are both highly
> intelligent, independent - and VERY creative minds, and I don't mean
> in the sense of creative accounting! We have seen enough of that
> recently! Unorthodox? Sure! But that's what the world needs, perhaps
> more than ever before.
Thanx, John. Likewise (not the banal, disyllabic, half-tone
protocol-observant "likewise"), but the real McCoy.
> One of the nicest things I have seen around this place for a long
> time!
> I hope you'll both read Hoagland and Bara, 'Dark Mission: the Secret
> History of NASA' - and support them, if yo think them right! I do!
Alex Jones had Hoagland on a few months ago. Impressive show.
I find his evidence of possible remnants of a "glass" lunar city
intriguing to say the least, and quite sobering. My best guess is that
Hoagland and Bara have uncovered something that is probably going to
shake the foundations of human understanding. Which is good news for
me. I've never wanted to be alone ... except perhaps amongst the
humans. Give me a pressure cooker and an Eastern Ghats' valley view,
and I think I can find a better attitude towards my fellow human beings.
In any event, I think I already mentioned the incident involving
my physician friend in Ontario, who, together with his yoga-active wife,
entertained visitors outside their W'ndsor b'droom w'ndow, one early
rooster-rise not so long ago. The good doctor fetched the cups, but the
guests brought their own saucer.
Cheers
BradGuth
In case you haven't quite noticed, this topic is about the planet
Venus.
There is quite large and otherwise intelligent looking infrastructure
on Venus, and there is sufficient physics and otherwise perfectly good
science in support of this observationology interpretation. Meanwhile
our nation and much of the world has been going down the toilet
because of this covered up matter of fact about Venus is a global
thing, that which the rich and powerful wish to keep to themselves.
At least I can't muster up any better reasons for the way this
research of the planet Venus has taken such a turn for the worse, as
though it's the only essential damage-control game of taboo/
nondisclosure in town. However, it seems our physically dark and
naked Selene/moon isn't much better off than Venus, perhaps for more
of the same taboo/nondisclosure status quo or bust reasons of why our
government has been consistently working against us.
Are you genetically blind or otherwise impaired?
~ BG
BradGuth
> On Sep 25, 12:21 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Venus facts and what-ifs, or perhaps don’t ask and don’t tell.
>
> > Besides all of the mainstream usual data that we’re supposed to accept
> > without doubts, fear or remorse, there’s other interpretations that
> > might not be so discouraging or insurmountable as you might think.
>
> > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
>
> physics and otherwise perfectly good enough science in support of this
> interpretation. Meanwhile our nation and much of the world has been
> going down the toilet because of this covered up matter of fact about
> Venus is a global thing, that which the rich and powerful wish to keep
> to themselves.
>
> research of the planet Venus has taken such a turn for the worse, as
> though it's the only essential damage-control game in town. However,
> it seems our physically dark and naked Selene/moon isn't much better
> off than Venus, perhaps for more of the same taboo/nondisclosure
> status quo or bust reasons.
>
> ~ BG
Even a retarded 5th grader can see the obvious topic/author stalking
by the Zionist/Nazi (aka republican Mafia) mindset that's involved
with nailing anyone sharing a positive or merely constructive thought
on behalf of Venus.
They even took out William Mook as soon as he'd shared a viable energy
plan of action in order for humans to survive on Venus. Not that I
agreed with his usually deceptive and/or ulterior motive saturated
analogy, but never the less they'd eliminated Mook for even that much.
Now it seems they're trying to destroy our global financial
foundation, as a E911 kind of damage-control tactic or subversion,
similar to what their brown-nosed minions as Usenet/newsgroup clowns
have been doing to us all along.
foolsrushin.
Brad, I am catching up on your Venus stuff, and I apologise for not
having looked at it before. Don't forget, however, Hoagland and Bara:
it is not just Venus that is not taken seriously, though about it, all
I can do is adapt the delightful Patrick Moore tag line to 'I just
don't know!'
You and Zook, row as much as you want and must and like but don't fall
out: we need you both! I'll be there with whtever I can come up with,
hopefully not irrelevant, when I can!
Be brothers in arms! That would be good!
--
foolsrushin.
zookumar yelubandi
> On Oct 23, 3:11 pm, zookumar yelubandi <zooku...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > foolsrushin. wrote:
> > > On 23 Oct, 03:59, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
This topic is about Hoagland and Bara and Luna/moon, at least
from where I'm looking. I can see where the establishment would wield
the same hacking axe against research on Venus, that they've used
against evidence from the Apollo missions.
> There is quite large and otherwise intelligent looking infrastructure
> on Venus, and there is sufficient physics and otherwise perfectly good
> science in support of this observationology interpretation. Meanwhile
> our nation and much of the world has been going down the toilet
> because of this covered up matter of fact about Venus is a global
> thing, that which the rich and powerful wish to keep to themselves.
Like the Moon. Like free energy. Like the resources of the
good Earth. Etc.
> At least I can't muster up any better reasons for the way this
> research of the planet Venus has taken such a turn for the worse, as
> though it's the only essential damage-control game of taboo/
> nondisclosure in town. However, it seems our physically dark and
> naked Selene/moon isn't much better off than Venus, perhaps for more
> of the same taboo/nondisclosure status quo or bust reasons of why our
> government has been consistently working against us.
>
> Are you genetically blind or otherwise impaired?
> ~ BG
I'm doing fine. It appears that *you're* the one who's lost in
a world of ego and self-delusion; after all, you can't see beyond your
own myopic Guthian perspective to realize that I've been agreeing with
you, in large part, on the things being discussed here. It's also a
bloated ego that eclipses your view of the twin towers and prevents you
from observing the manifestation of their robust architectural design in
the immediacy of the plane impacts (via instantaneous redistribuition of
their respective loads).
To wit, you do major disservice to the cause of Venus awareness
with your tittle-tethered jaunts about a brobdingnagian ego.
BradGuth
Most folks do not bother to read into anything about the planet Venus,
perhaps it’s because thy already know all there is to know, and then
some.
Deductively interpreting the best available science as based upon the
regular laws of physics is simply too much to ask for, especially if I
can’t provide those polished NOVA infomercials and 3D animated eye-
candy (aka LeapFrog format) that they’ll accept.
“We're ignorant of life in the universe. We only have one planet that
serves as an example and in science it's not good to derive
information from a sample size of one.” / David Grinspoon
Not to limit those of you to my interpretations of Venus hosting
intelligent other life (not necessarily local grown, but more likely
ETs), there’s also John Ackerman’s alternative view of Venus that I
can’t entirely disagree with.
An Alternate View of Venus / John Ackerman
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf
BradGuth
At the very least, use Google Groups in order to see what the general
public and media gets to see. This topic is " What’s new and improved
about Venus".
>
> > There is quite large and otherwise intelligent looking infrastructure
> > on Venus, and there is sufficient physics and otherwise perfectly good
> > science in support of this observationology interpretation. Meanwhile
> > our nation and much of the world has been going down the toilet
> > because of this covered up matter of fact about Venus is a global
> > thing, that which the rich and powerful wish to keep to themselves.
>
> Like the Moon. Like free energy. Like the resources of the
> good Earth. Etc.
Not really, because per m2 Venus offers at least a thousand fold more
energy than Earth, as will as having 65 kg/m3 buoyancy and only 0.9
gravity, plus a thick and robust atmosphere to protect our frail DNA
from solar, cosmic and local sources of radiation. Surviving Venus is
certainly toasty but otherwise technically within the scope of what's
doable if you were at least half as smart as a 5th grader. (I think
ETs are somewhat smarter than 5th graders)
>
> > At least I can't muster up any better reasons for the way this
> > research of the planet Venus has taken such a turn for the worse, as
> > though it's the only essential damage-control game of taboo/
> > nondisclosure in town. However, it seems our physically dark and
> > naked Selene/moon isn't much better off than Venus, perhaps for more
> > of the same taboo/nondisclosure status quo or bust reasons of why our
> > government has been consistently working against us.
>
> > Are you genetically blind or otherwise impaired?
> > ~ BG
>
> I'm doing fine. It appears that *you're* the one who's lost in
> a world of ego and self-delusion; after all, you can't see beyond your
> own myopic Guthian perspective to realize that I've been agreeing with
> you, in large part, on the things being discussed here.
Be specific. What have you agreed with? What have you constructively
contributed on behalf of Venus?
>
> It's also a
> bloated ego that eclipses your view of the twin towers and prevents you
> from observing the manifestation of their robust architectural design in
> the immediacy of the plane impacts (via instantaneous redistribuition of
> their respective loads).
I've agreed that some extra help or allowances took down those less
than code structures. All of modern engineering has essentially
condemned the structural and safety aspects of those towers (NYC
officials that got paid off should be held responsible). Computer
models would show that a given damaged floor load (plus aircraft
debris) impacting at 10+ m/s onto the floor below would not have stood
much of any chance of holding up. The fire protection to the most
critical of structural steel was minimal to not existing. I would not
have insured those structures without a multi hundred million dollar
deductible in escrow.
>
> To wit, you do major disservice to the cause of Venus awareness
> with your tittle-tethered jaunts about a brobdingnagian ego.
>
> -zookumar-
> ps: "www.infowars.com"
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Googletype "ethericity, Lindemann" and change the world. Capture
> lightning in a bottle and say "seeya" to fossil fuels, nuclear fuels,
> wind fuels, water fuels, and leave solar energy alone so it can do its
> work on Chlorophyll P680 and put some green back on this good earth.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
When you get yourself past 5th grade, we'll talk. Until then, don't
bother.
~ BG
BradGuth
No matters how much I’ve requested of others to answer a few pesky
questions, and having otherwise shared my research material, most
folks simply prefer to lie because they usually do not bother to read
into anything outside of their cozy mainstream eye-candy saturated
media about the planet Venus, perhaps it’s because they already know
all there is to know, and then some. Same argument or assessment goes
for topics about our Selene/moon that’s so unusually mainstream taboo/
nondisclosure rated.
Deductively interpreting via the best available science as based upon
the regular laws of physics is simply too much to ask for, especially
if I can’t provide those polished NOVA infomercials with custom
surround-sound tracks and 3D animated eye-candy (aka LeapFrog pop-up
format) that they’ll accept.
“We're ignorant of life in the universe. We only have one planet that
serves as an example and in science it's not good to derive
information from a sample size of one.” / David Grinspoon
Not to limit those of you to my observationology interpretations of
Venus hosting intelligent other life (not necessarily of any local
grown species, but more likely ETs), there’s also John Ackerman’s
alternative view of Venus that I can’t entirely disagree with.
An Alternate View of Venus / John Ackerman
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
zookumar yelubandi
> On Oct 24, 5:57 pm, zookumar yelubandi <zooku...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > BradGuth wrote:
> > > In case you haven't quite noticed, this topic is about the planet
> > > Venus.
> > This topic is about Hoagland and Bara and Luna/moon, at least
> > from where I'm looking. I can see where the establishment would wield
> > the same hacking axe against research on Venus, that they've used
> > against evidence from the Apollo missions.
>
> At the very least, use Google Groups in order to see what the general
> public and media gets to see. This topic is " What s new and improved
> about Venus".
Every topic evolves its own tentacles. You understand that and
you'll understand how to avoid getting mired in yesterday's news.
> > > There is quite large and otherwise intelligent looking infrastructure
> > > on Venus, and there is sufficient physics and otherwise perfectly good
> > > science in support of this observationology interpretation. Meanwhile
> > > our nation and much of the world has been going down the toilet
> > > because of this covered up matter of fact about Venus is a global
> > > thing, that which the rich and powerful wish to keep to themselves.
> > Like the Moon. Like free energy. Like the resources of the
> > good Earth. Etc.
> Not really, because per m2 Venus offers at least a thousand fold more
> energy than Earth, as will as having 65 kg/m3 buoyancy and only 0.9
> gravity, plus a thick and robust atmosphere to protect our frail DNA
> from solar, cosmic and local sources of radiation. Surviving Venus is
> certainly toasty but otherwise technically within the scope of what's
> doable if you were at least half as smart as a 5th grader. (I think
> ETs are somewhat smarter than 5th graders)
You have unusally crude comprehension skills for someone who
advertises himself on a lofty intellectual billboard. I was not
alluding to the viability of Venus as a bioplanet and/or the
survivability of carbon-based life there. I was alluding to the lack of
sharing of information; and to the lack of sharing, in general. The
Moon has secrets to yield. Free energy (as per Tesla) has secrets to
yield. The Earth still has many secrets to yield.
> > > At least I can't muster up any better reasons for the way this
> > > research of the planet Venus has taken such a turn for the worse, as
> > > though it's the only essential damage-control game of taboo/
> > > nondisclosure in town. However, it seems our physically dark and
> > > naked Selene/moon isn't much better off than Venus, perhaps for more
> > > of the same taboo/nondisclosure status quo or bust reasons of why our
> > > government has been consistently working against us.
> > > Are you genetically blind or otherwise impaired?
> > > ~ BG
> > I'm doing fine. It appears that *you're* the one who's lost in
> > a world of ego and self-delusion; after all, you can't see beyond your
> > own myopic Guthian perspective to realize that I've been agreeing with
> > you, in large part, on the things being discussed here.
> Be specific. What have you agreed with? What have you constructively
> contributed on behalf of Venus?
I've agreed that there probably exist truths about Venus that
are being actively resisted; certainly, from taking root in the public
domain. And I base this largely on the establishment's history of
manipulating public discourse and opposing *thought* that thrives beyond
its long reach (e.g. independent ideas and science).
> > It's also a
> > bloated ego that eclipses your view of the twin towers and prevents you
> > from observing the manifestation of their robust architectural design in
> > the immediacy of the plane impacts (via instantaneous redistribuition of
> > their respective loads).
> I've agreed that some extra help or allowances took down those less
> than code structures. All of modern engineering has essentially
That is classic disinformation. "All of modern engineering"
(whatever that means) has *not* condemned the structural and safety
aspects of the towers. Many qualified engineers deeply question the
veracity of the official report on 9/11/2001. The vast majority of
intelligent beings that are still in commune with critical thinking
skills, have largely viewed those engineers that have toed the
establishment line, as little more than shills, minions, hacks, cowards,
liars, etc. Visit the following website to see what intelligent
engineers (i.e. those that comprehend reality with hard science) have to
say on the matter of the twin towers' collapses. You'll be charmed by
the results.
> condemned the structural and safety aspects of those towers (NYC
> officials that got paid off should be held responsible). Computer
> models would show that a given damaged floor load (plus aircraft
> debris) impacting at 10+ m/s onto the floor below would not have stood
> much of any chance of holding up. The fire protection to the most
> critical of structural steel was minimal to not existing. I would not
> have insured those structures without a multi hundred million dollar
> deductible in escrow.
You expose your lack of science with your establishment
parrotspeak. Gordon Ross (mechanical engineer) has done an excellent
deformational analysis on the WTC1 collapse He concludes that collapse
continuation would have stopped some 20 milliseconds after it had
started due to insufficient input energy from the dynamic load
(upperblock falling onto lower structure).
"http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf"
> > To wit, you do major disservice to the cause of Venus awareness
> > with your tittle-tethered jaunts about a brobdingnagian ego.
> > -zookumar-
> > ps: "www.infowars.com"
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Googletype "ethericity, Lindemann" and change the world. Capture
> > lightning in a bottle and say "seeya" to fossil fuels, nuclear fuels,
> > wind fuels, water fuels, and leave solar energy alone so it can do its
> > work on Chlorophyll P680 and put some green back on this good earth.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> When you get yourself past 5th grade, we'll talk. Until then, don't
> bother.
> ~ BG
You, Brad Guth, appear to be a disinformation specialist that
has ligated the Venus question onto the 9/11/2001 question, precisely to
drag the latter into the same diaphonous haze that consumes the former.
The Venus question is largely hypothetical and based on
imaginative conjectures. Hoagland and Bara's Moon question is less
problematic in that they actually base their arguments on evidence
gathered from the Apollo missions. What *tangible* evidence has been
collected about Venus? Can you point me to a site?
Granted, you might yet not be a disinfo operative ... but unless
some reality is injected into your perspective on 9/11/2001, your
argument for a new awareness of Venus remains burdened by its most
persistent champion.
BradGuth
Zook isn’t my cup of tea. I’m not insisting that he’s 9/11 wrong,
just thinking he’s a wee out of focus or having skewed himself off
track, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
On behalf of this Venus topic, it seems no matters how much I’ve
requested of others to answer or best SWAG on behalf of a few pesky
questions, and having otherwise shared my research material, most
folks simply prefer to lie because they usually do not bother to read
into anything outside of their cozy mainstream eye-candy saturated
media has to say about the planet Venus, perhaps it’s because they
already know all there is to know, and then some. Same argument or
assessment goes for topics about our Selene/moon that’s so unusually
mainstream taboo/nondisclosure rated unless it 100% matches their NASA/
Apollo Qur’an or Old Testament.
In fact, most folks that claim they’ve looked at my resampled and
processed images of what I’ve deductively interpreted Venus has to
offer that’s other than natural terrain, can not even get past having
to load anything into a PhotoShop or similar program, much less
enlarge and sharpen any small portion via the best available science,
and otherwise if based upon the regular laws of physics is simply too
much to ask for, especially if I can’t provide those polished NOVA
infomercials with custom surround-sound tracks and 3D animated eye-
candy (aka LeapFrog pop-up format) that they’ll obviously accept as
long as it always has our NASA stamp of approval.
Not to intentionally limit those of you perpetual naysayers and
otherwise skeptics in denial to my observationology interpretations of
Venus hosting intelligent other life (not necessarily of any local
grown species, but more likely ETs perhaps like us), there’s also John
Ackerman’s alternative view of Venus, that in many respects I can’t
entirely disagree with.
“We're ignorant of life in the universe. We only have one planet that
serves as an example and in science it's not good to derive
information from a sample size of one.” / David Grinspoon
An Alternate View of Venus / John Ackerman
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
BradGuth
For some reason Google/NOVA Usenet (aka Google Groups) has been
offline, as in dragging its butt or simply getting remote moderated to
death (probably something requested by the Rothschilds dynasty and
their global partners in crimes against humanity, whereas you get to
do as they say, or else). Of course political folks in full damage-
control mode over this ongoing financial fiasco where the rich and
powerful get richer and more powerful would not want my views or those
of a few others to be heard either, so much so that for any number of
reasons would have shut this public medium of free speech down.
Zook isn’t my cup of tea. I’m not insisting that his 9/11 analogy is
dead wrong, just thinking he’s a wee out of focus or having skewed
himself a little off track, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing
because, the whole truth and nothing but the truth has not been told
about those rather unusual structural failures or of the entire 9/11
fiasco to start with.
On behalf of this Venus topic, it seems no matters how much I’ve
requested of others to answer or best SWAG on behalf of a few pesky
questions, and having otherwise shared my research material, most
folks simply prefer to lie because they usually do not bother to read
into anything outside of their cozy mainstream eye-candy saturated
media has to say about the planet Venus, perhaps it’s because they
already know all there is to know, and then some. Same argument or
assessment goes for topics about our Selene/moon that’s so unusually
mainstream taboo/nondisclosure rated unless it 100% matches their NASA/
Apollo Qur’an or Old Testament.
In fact, most folks that claim they’ve looked at my resampled and
processed images of what I’ve deductively interpreted Venus has to
offer that’s other than natural terrain, can not even get past having
to load anything into a PhotoShop or similar program, much less
enlarge and sharpen any small portion via the best available science,
and otherwise if based upon the regular laws of physics is simply too
much to ask for, especially if I can’t provide those polished NOVA
infomercials with custom surround-sound tracks and 3D animated eye-
candy (aka LeapFrog pop-up format) that they’ll obviously accept as
long as it always has our NASA stamp of approval.
Not to intentionally limit those of you as perpetual naysayers and
otherwise skeptics in denial to my observationology interpretations of
Venus hosting intelligent other life (not necessarily implying a
locally grown species, but more likely ETs perhaps like us), there’s
also John Ackerman’s alternative view of Venus, that in many respects
I can’t entirely disagree with.
“We're ignorant of life in the universe. We only have one planet that
serves as an example and in science it's not good to derive
information from a sample size of one.” / David Grinspoon
An Alternate View of Venus / John Ackerman
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
BradGuth
> On 25 Sep, 08:21, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Venus facts and what-ifs, or perhaps don’t ask and don’t tell.
> > Besides all of the mainstream usual data that we’re suppose
> > without doubts, fear or remorse, there’s other interpretations that
> > might not be so discouraging or insurmountable as you might think.
> > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
>
> and full of your own covictions that I could easily find myself
> supporting your opponents, even if only as an experiment!
>
> You might do better by finding out, when you can manage to forget your
> vast negative ego for a few minutes of clicking, that people like
> Richard Hoagland and Mile Bara largely agree with you!
>
> You don't know why, though, do you? All you do is whine?
>
> to me, Brad!
>
> I dare say you will conclude Hoagland and Bara are even more stoopid
> than yourself, and then let us know how you devised the measurement.
>
> http://www.enterprisemission.com/
> --
> foolsrushin.
It’s wussy folks like yourself that has our once great nation on its
knees. Even though you claim being open minded, you’re not nearly as
open as you think. At least I’m returning the warm and fuzzy favor
with all the love and affection that I can muster, upon those stalking
and trashing folks like yourself, whereas you don’t seem to mind that
we’re being systematically screwed by those in charge.
In addition to all of the mainstream usual of brown-nosed clowns
performing their Usenet/newsgroup damage-control tactics on behalf of
their status quo, for some reason our Google/NOVA Usenet (aka Google
Groups) has been extensively offline, as in dragging its posting butt
or simply getting itself remote moderated to death (probably due to
something requested by the Rothschilds extended dynasty and their
global partners in crimes against humanity, whereas you get to do as
they say, or else). Of course political folks in full cover-thy-but
in damage-control mode over this ongoing financial fiasco where the
rich and powerful get richer and more powerful, as such would not want
my views or those of a few others to be heard either, so much so that
for any number of reasons would have shut this public medium of free
speech down.
Contributor Zook/(zookumar yelubandi) isn’t exactly my cup of tea.
I’m not insisting that his 9/11 analogy is dead wrong, just thinking
he’s a wee out of focus or having skewed himself a little off track,
which isn’t necessarily a bad thing because, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth has not been told about those rather unusual
structural failures or of the entire 9/11 fiasco to start with. I say
those buildings were at best marginal to start with, and Zook doesn’t
agree there was any structural compromise other than being
intentionally caused in addition to those aircraft impacts.
On behalf of this Venus topic, it seems no matters how much I’ve
requested of others to answer or best SWAG on behalf of a few pesky
questions, and having otherwise shared my research material, most
folks simply prefer to lie because they usually do not bother to read
into anything outside of whatever their cozy mainstream eye-candy
saturated media has to say about the planet Venus, perhaps it’s
because they already know all there is to know, and then some. Same
argument or assessment goes for topics about our Selene/moon that’s so
unusually mainstream taboo/nondisclosure rated unless it 100% matches
their NASA/Apollo Qur’an or Old Testament.
In fact, most folks that claim they’ve looked at my resampled and
processed images, of what I’ve deductively interpreted Venus has to
offer that’s other than natural terrain, can not even get past having
to load anything into a PhotoShop or similar program, much less
enlarge and sharpen any small portion via the best available science,
and otherwise if based upon the regular laws of physics is simply too
much to ask for, especially if I can’t provide those polished NOVA
infomercials with custom surround-sound tracks and 3D animated eye-
candy (aka LeapFrog pop-up format) that they’ll obviously accept as
long as it always has our NASA stamp of approval.
Though many official Magellan image archives seem to exist, thanks
again to our once upon a time Usenet contributor "tomcat", for his
having posted an optional link to this somewhat older but otherwise
updated collective page of our Venus surface images.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
Without taking a much closer look at the image I’m working from, you
will not likely see anything out of the expected hot rocks.
Actually, there’s really nothing all that pixel secret worthy or new
to report about Venus, especially since the best available raw pixels
of 75 meters resolution have been those of nearly 3D radar imaging,
and of an honest PhotoShop enlargement that can be fully reversed and
otherwise replicated to your hearts content, that can interpret such
things as 25 meters/pixel when accomplished by a mere 3 fold resample/
enlargement process, or even possibly as great as 9 fold as taken from
the preferred 225 m/pixel GIF format as most easily cropped and saved
as a JPEG monochrome working format, is what seems rather interesting
and worth doing, that is if you’re at least half as smart as a 5th
grader.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
If you need some help seeing what I’m interpreting as other than
natural terrain, just ask, not that I haven’t posted links at least a
thousand times to those of my processed images.
Disneygeek
> On Sep 25, 11:56 am, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > On Sep 25, 6:35 am, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
>
> > > Like your Venusian airships ?????
> > > Bwahahahahahahahahhahah ... loon!!> > >news:799170d4-a2fb-42e4...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > > Venus facts and what-ifs, or perhaps don’t ask and don’t tell.
>
> > > without doubts, fear or remorse, there’s other interpretations that
> > > might not be so discouraging or insurmountable as you might think.
>
> > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
>
> > However, it seems some of my planned context is worth getting
> > moderated or banished.
>
> > 1) Venus facts and what-ifs, or perhaps don’t ask and don’t tell.
>
> > >Seems rather intellectually pathetic and otherwise downright odd that
> > >so much of our mainstream media as offering science news and public
> > >funded information can’t actively involve our own physically dark as
> > >coal Selene/moon,
>
> > Typically disjointed GuthBall sentence structure. So the Moon is dark
> > as coal?? Is that why it is so bright in the night sky?
> > Albedo is the reflectivity of an object, expressed in % of the incident
> > light,
> > in this case, the Sun.
> > Venus = 0.65
>
> Venus is more like 0.75~0.8 (roughly twice the albedo of Earth)
>
>
>
> > Earth = 0.37
> > Mars = 0.15
> > Moon = 0.12
>
> Our moon is actually on average more like 0.07 as viewed from Earth,
> and perhaps 0.11~0.12 as viewed from lunar orbit.
>
>
>
> > Mercury = 0.11
> > So much for dark as coal, you lunatic.
>
> Our Selene/moon is on average physically darker than Mercury.
> Terrestrial coal is worth roughly 0.10 (that's actually pretty darn
> close to 0.11)
>
>
>
> > >or much less that of deductively discussing Venus,
>
> > First off, Venus is permanently shrouded in very sulphorous clouds.
> > US satellites have successfully mapped its surface and a few
> > Russian probes (sondes) actually made it all the way to the
> > surface. They found an extremely hot and hostile environment. The
> > pressures are crushing and the atmosphere is poisenous. There may
> > be some volcanic activity, but it is not a place for humans ... ever.
>
> Speaking for yourself? What if the surface has untold mineral riches
> plus unlimited energy by which to extract, process and export?
>
> What is it with unlimited local energy and mineral riches that can't
> be accomplished?
But is it worth going after if your equipment is going to decay so
quickly in the dangerous atmosphere?
Disneygeek
> On Sep 27, 10:00 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing for certain, with the planet Venus having been losing or
> giving off 20.5 w/m2 more thermal energy than our sun contributes, and
> otherwise having such a nifty solar reflective and robust atmosphere,
> is why Venus hasn't been getting itself any hotter.
OK, I know I'm going to regret this, but where are you getting this
number from?
AND is there any indication that Venus is getting "cooler" or
developing a less corrosive, acidic atmosphere other than your saying
so?
BradGuth
Question of the day:
Why do the Zionist/Nazis not want us taking a closed look-see at
Venus?
~ BG
BradGuth
Keep up the good work, and do let us know when you manage to get
yourself past 5th grade, and perhaps even an engineering-101 degree in
tall buildings that don't care about whatever floor by floor
overloading or that of having a massive aircraft load plus most of
everything nearby on fire within a structure that's loaded with steam
piping and steam accumulators.
For starters, tell us how many tonnes (within +/- 1 kg) and at what
pressure of steam was packaged into either tower.
Again, I'm not suggesting there wasn't a little artificial help
involved with the sudden and rather total demise of those structures.
Perhaps the aircraft itself could have been packing more kinetic and
fuel energy than expected.
I have no doubts that our government and of its faith-based puppet
masters are corrupt, especially of their Republican Mafia side.
Meanwhile, back on Venus?
~ BG
zookumar yelubandi
> On Oct 25, 10:05 am, zookumar yelubandi <zooku...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > BradGuth wrote:
> Keep up the good work, and do let us know when you manage to get
> yourself past 5th grade, and perhaps even an engineering-101 degree in
If I'm in fifth grade, son, you're still in the womb.
> tall buildings that don't care about whatever floor by floor
> overloading or that of having a massive aircraft load plus most of
> everything nearby on fire within a structure that's loaded with steam
> piping and steam accumulators.
Your ego has overloaded your brain, neuron by neuron. We are
witnessing the self-controlled demolition of your intelligence. For
those who actually understand science and the derived processes of
logic, the application of the LAW OF CONSERVATION OF LINEAR MOMENTUM
*establishes* the cause of collapse as something other than fire and
gravity-induced. Given this establishment, to pursue factors that
relate to fire and gravity-induced collapse is the boon of an illogical
mind.
> For starters, tell us how many tonnes (within +/- 1 kg) and at what
> pressure of steam was packaged into either tower.
Irrelevant pursuit, except for the illogical mind.
> Again, I'm not suggesting there wasn't a little artificial help
> involved with the sudden and rather total demise of those structures.
> Perhaps the aircraft itself could have been packing more kinetic and
> fuel energy than expected.
This is the kind of "information detour" that makes it probable
that you're a disinformation agent. Again, the establishment of fact
through the LAW OF CONSERVATION OF LINEAR MOMENTUM, eliminates such
detours.
Fact: the twin towers stood for 45 minutes and 85 minutes after
their respective plane impacts. By the time each tower collapsed, plane
impact energy is long removed from the equation. The collapse
parameters now involve the dynamic loading of the upperblocks
(which had been static for 45 and 85 minutes, respectively) onto the
lowerblocks.
I don't know if you realize this, but your suggestions are worth
squat at this moment.
> I have no doubts that our government and of its faith-based puppet
> masters are corrupt, especially of their Republican Mafia side.
The disinformaton agent: a black stripe trying to disappear into
the binary backfield of the fact zebra.
> Meanwhile, back on Venus?
> ~ BG
About Venus. I checked out the webpage of images (after
readjusting the URL) from Venus. There is nothing extraoradinary in
those images that support your claims about Venus. Help me out. What
patterns are you seeing in those images that makes you convinced that
there is something more to The Morning Star than conventional beliefs
and understandings perhaps allow?
I found your cite to John Ackerman's 'An Alternate View of
Venus' more interesting. Indeed, Ackerman may be onto something with
his theory that Venus is only six millenia old and a fragment of
Jupiter. The Red Spot could very well be the belly button from which
Venus detached after a cosmic impact. This, taken with ancient
accounts describing a "Bearded Planet" and other data ... makes an
intriguing case for re-exploring the origins of Venus, and for the
terrestial planets, as well. At the same time, 6000 years seems like
an incredibly short time for life to have evolved there. And why would
extraSolar visitors prefer Venus as a base of operations when Earth
offers itself, in full blue and green regalia? Intriguing, for
comparative purposes, are the fossil records on Earth which can be
carbon-dated millions of years into the past.
In any event, Venus invites more questions than answers.
Certainly, it opens up the debate to questions of the origins of all the
planets of the Solar System.
What, particularly, did you want to discuss about Venus? I'll
try my level best to give you the benefit of doubt and see you *not* as
a disinformation agent (of the establishment). This, despite your
intellectual dishonesty and establishment parrotspeak wrt 9/11/2001.
You're quite welcome.
Disneygeek
Because it's not practical given the massive heat, pressure and
caustic atmosphere. Nothing to do with what political beliefs are
running through your head.
Sanforized
What's similar about Guth and a sleeping dog?
BradGuth
Unlike yourself, I'm not a wizard at everything under the sun, much
less off-world.
For starters, stop quoting absolutely everything under the sun.
Secondly, this topic has gotten too much brown-nosed mainstream clown
trashed to manage.
How about you go away for a little while, and I'll restart this topic
either here or within a semiprivate Google group where I'll have some
management control over the content or context of those topic/author
stalking because it's their sworn duty.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / Guth Usenet
BradGuth
That's it? You've got to be kidding. Not practical? (as in how so?)
There's nothing all that insurmountable about Venus, at least not
compared to Mars or most any other planet or moon.
I kid you not, there are environments just as pesky if not worse off
on Earth than on Venus, and Earth/m2 hasn't 0.1% as much energy to
spare.
~ BG
Disneygeek
I didn't say it was insurmountable, I said it wasn't practical. Most
of your energy is going to go toward maintaining your environment
since Venus is trying to destroy it at ever turn. (This actually might
make a good SF story. Better than the old "prehistoric bog" type we
got back in the '40s. I think Asimov probably did the last one of
those as part of his "Lucky Star" series.)
BradGuth
> On Oct 28, 9:24 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 28, 8:25 am, Disneygeek <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 27, 1:18 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Question of the day:
>
> > > > Why do the Zionist/Nazis not want us taking a closed look-see at
> > > > Venus?
>
> > > Because it's not practical given the massive heat, pressure and
> > > caustic atmosphere. Nothing to do with what political beliefs are
> > > running through your head.
>
> > That's it? You've got to be kidding. Not practical? (as in how so?)
>
> > There's nothing all that insurmountable about Venus, at least not
> > compared to Mars or most any other planet or moon.
>
> > I kid you not, there are environments just as pesky if not worse off
> > on Earth than on Venus, and Earth/m2 hasn't 0.1% as much energy to
> > spare.
>
> I didn't say it was insurmountable, I said it wasn't practical.
Mars or for that matter our moon is certainly not practical. So
what's your point?
> Most
> of your energy is going to go toward maintaining your environment
> since Venus is trying to destroy it at ever turn. (This actually might
> make a good SF story. Better than the old "prehistoric bog" type we
> got back in the '40s. I think Asimov probably did the last one of
> those as part of his "Lucky Star" series.)
Just the passive stack effect alone gives us access to more local and
fully renewable energy than we can shake all of our combined fists
full of burning sticks at (so to speak), not to mention placing such a
power generating stack over a given S8+CO2 geothermal vent, of which
Venus has way more than it's fair share of such geothermal heated
vents to spare.
btw, I have a little better math for estimating the net usable energy
from a km tall stack of reasonable diameter, although it could
certainly use some technical polish, of which I'm fairly certain your
ulterior motivated nayism mindset can't allow yourself to contribute
anything about Venus on a positive note.
What's your best SWAG as to the "fluid arch" of Guth Venus?
~ BG
BradGuth
> Venus facts and what-ifs, or perhaps don’t ask and don’t tell.
>
> Besides all of the mainstream usual data that we’re supposed to accept
> without doubts, fear or remorse, there’s other interpretations that
> might not be so discouraging or insurmountable as you might think.
>
Intelligent other life on planet 2 (Venus)
Since Painius has obviously gotten himself caught with his pants down
and his intellectual mainstream bigotry showing us its ugly pecker
mindset of perpetual denial and evidence exclusion. How about the
rest of us start sharing a positive/constructive technological thought
or two, such as on behalf of intelligent ETs (meaning us humans if you
like) accomplishing Venus, perhaps even towards sharing a little
something like our William Mook (aka willie.moo) recently contributed
within another topic “Is it this easy to live on Earth?”.
A discovery of Venus diatoms would certainly be nice, however, you
really do not require surface and/or upper atmosphere accommodated
diatoms, or for that matter any viable microbes of complex local DNA
for a given planet or moon to accommodate intelligent other life, even
if it’s only as marginally intelligent as we humans.
Supposedly our physically dark moon that’s naked to the tune of the
3e-15 bar lunar environment that's continually surrounded by a highly
charged atmosphere of hot sodium, plus everything else being highly
electrostatic charged and otherwise fully reactive as the raw exposed
surface density of our Selene/moon actually is, of which by day or
night is saturated in cosmic and local recoil gamma, and by day is
getting its IR roasted surface extra saturated in hard to soft X-rays,
plus otherwise representing every bit as bad if not somewhat worse off
than any nasty portion of our Van Allan magnetosphere badlands, as
such and in spite of the daunting odds supposedly had intelligent life
walking about, as though it was exactly like a certain terrestrial
guano island that was entirely passive, extensively monochromatic of
0.65 ~ 0.75 reflective, and as though merely xenon arc lamp spectrum
illuminated.
So, how technically hard or otherwise insurmountable could Venus
really be? Especially if the regular laws of physics do not apply, as
they obviously didn’t on behalf of those with “the right stuff”
accomplishing our Selene/moon.
-
On behalf of Venus oxygen (O2) and what’s otherwise so geothermal,
I’ve added basic search information that a smart preschool child could
probably accomplish on their little green laptop.
Planet 2 (Venus) would likely represent a tough crowd for a stand up
comedian, although it’s not technically insurmountable unless you had
a mainstream status quo mindset of perpetual denial and otherwise of
evidence exclusion.
Try a LeapFrog Search: Venus oxygen or Venus volcanoes
http://images.google.com/images?q=venus%20oxygen&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
http://www.entertainmentandshowbiz.com/venus-express-searches-for-life-on-earth-200810193508
“We see water and molecular oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere, but Venus
also shows these signatures.”
http://jtintle.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/zoom-in-on-venus%e2%80%99-oxygen-airglow/
Zoom-in on Venus’ oxygen airglow
And the published topics of old and new research goes on and on,
though probably not published in LeapFrog format for the mentally
disadvantaged or in braille for the sight impaired likes of Painius.
I believe the Venus O2 science goes back nearly a couple of decades,
to those having used narrow bandpass optical filters, but never got
anything published until more recently. Even though this Venus O2
layer is well above the acidic clouds, this means that it’s the oxygen
emerging from the planet to start off with.
Btw, those robust and fairly acidic clouds would easily provide
teratonnes of pure h2o, as well as subsequently offering nearly
unlimited amounts of o2, h2 and of all things h2o2.
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/project/virtis/venus-vol.html
“There are some 55,000 volcanoes larger than 1 km across identified
on Venus, spread over 646 volcano fields.”
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/volcanoes/planet_volcano/venus/intro.html
“Venus has more volcanoes than any other planet in the solar system.
Over 1600 major volcanoes or volcanic features are known (see map),
and there are many, many more smaller volcanoes. (No one has yet
counted them all, but the total number may be over 100,000 or even
over 1,000,000).”
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf
Geothermal CO2+S8 gas vents, as interpreted within “An Alternate View
of Venus” by John Ackerman, by rights should have given enough cause
to those interested in learning the truth.
Would any of you folks like to review and offer your best swag as to
my Guth Venus fluid arch, or is this item still too closely associated
with my Guth Venus township or ET outpost of those fairly large and
complex structures and major tarmac, as situated within their rational
community infrastructure?
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth
>
> http://www.entertainmentandshowbiz.com/venus-express-searches-for-lif...
> “We see water and molecular oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere, but Venus
> also shows these signatures.”
>
Unlike the certified bigots and incest formulated clowns of the
Zionist/Nazi and Rothschild brown-nosed mindset, I believe the regular
laws of physics do apply off world, and that observationology is a key
science that is getting continually topic/author stalked and bashed
for all the Old Testament worth that they can muster.
Interesting that Catholics, Muslims and most other than Zionist faith-
based groups are not actively playing the bad guys here in Google
Groups. It's only the New World Order and the Republican Mafia that
gets pissed off when others suggest that we're not alone, or that we
might not have entirely originated from Earth.
~ BG
BradGuth
I forgot to mention, that according to the mainstream status quo as
stipulated by Art deco (aka Saul Levy), no one is ever in charge of
anything, much less if it's turning ugly. Apparently all of our NASA,
DARPA and by far most of everything of our government are devout
Atheists, and as such never go to church or attend any kind of faith-
based private cabal or public group.
Oddly, the planet Venus seriously pisses them off, especially when
there's other intelligent life existing/coexisting where it's supposed
to be so downright nasty and insurmountable, as why otherwise would
they go into so much damage-control.
~ BG
BradGuth
"Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1"
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
If you can’t do the zoom-in, crop and lose the color format because
there is no color in any SAR obtained image to begin with, much less
do the PhotoShop or whatever digital enlargements w/unsharp mask
filter, don’t worry because 99.9% of Usenet still can’t tie their own
shoe laces.
Since Painius has obviously gotten himself caught with his pants down
and having broke wind with his intellectual mainstream bigotry that’s
showing us its ugly pecker mindset of perpetual denial and evidence
exclusion. Though in spite of his apparent lack of common knowledge
and seeming inability to accomplish a basic web search for much of
anything without benefit of his LeapFrog browser, how about the rest
of us start sharing a positive/constructive technological thought or
two, such as on behalf of intelligent ETs (meaning us humans if you
like) accomplishing Venus, perhaps even towards sharing a little
something like our William Mook (aka willie.moo) recently contributed
within another topic “Is it this easy to live on Earth?”.
Atmospheric diatoms? (not impossible)
A discovery of Venus diatoms would certainly be nice, however, you
really do not require surface and/or upper atmosphere accommodated
realm of diatoms, or for that matter any viable microbes of complex
local DNA for a given planet or moon to accommodate intelligent other
life, even if it’s only as marginally intelligent and/or as
dumbfounded as we humans.
Supposedly our physically dark moon that’s naked to the tune of the
3e-15 bar lunar environment that's continually surrounded by a highly
charged atmosphere of hot sodium, plus everything else about Selene
being highly electrostatic charged and otherwise fully reactive as the
raw exposed surface density of our Selene/moon actually is, of which
by day or night is saturated in cosmic and local recoil gamma, and by
day is getting its IR roasted surface extra saturated in solar hard to
soft X-rays, plus otherwise representing every bit as bad if not
somewhat worse off than any nasty portion of our Van Allan
magnetosphere badlands, as such and in spite of the daunting odds
supposedly had intelligent life walking about, as though it was
exactly like a certain terrestrial guano island that was entirely
passive, extensively monochromatic of 0.65 ~ 0.75 reflective, as
though merely xenon arc lamp spectrum illuminated.
So, how technically hard or otherwise insurmountable could Venus
really be? Especially if the regular laws of physics do not apply, as
they obviously didn’t on behalf of those with “the right stuff”
accomplishing our Selene/moon.
-
On behalf of Venus oxygen (O2) and what’s otherwise so geothermal of a
newish kind of planetology environment, I’ve added basic search
information that a smart preschool child could probably accomplish on
their little green laptop.
Planet 2 (Venus) would likely represent a tough crowd for a stand up
comedian, although it’s not technically insurmountable unless you had
a mainstream status quo mindset of perpetual denial and otherwise of
evidence exclusion.
Try a LeapFrog Search: Venus oxygen or Venus volcanoes
http://images.google.com/images?q=venus%20oxygen&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
http://www.entertainmentandshowbiz.com/venus-express-searches-for-life-on-earth-200810193508
“We see water and molecular oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere, but Venus
also shows these signatures.”
http://jtintle.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/zoom-in-on-venus%e2%80%99-oxygen-airglow/
Zoom-in on Venus’ oxygen airglow
And the published topics of old and new research goes on and on,
though probably not published in LeapFrog format for the mentally
disadvantaged or in braille format for the sight impaired likes of
Painius and countless others. I believe the Venus O2 science goes
back nearly a couple of decades, to those having used narrow bandpass
optical filters, but never got anything published until more
recently. Even though this Venus O2 layer is well above the acidic
clouds, at least this means that it’s the oxygen that is emerging from
the planet to start off with.
Btw, those robust and fairly acidic clouds would easily provide
teratonnes of pure h2o, as well as subsequently offering nearly
unlimited amounts of o2, h2 and of all things h2o2. Any good 5th
grade science class project would likely prove sufficient.
BradGuth
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
If you can’t do the zoom-in, crop and lose the color format because
there is no color in any SAR obtained image to begin with, much less
do the PhotoShop or whatever digital enlargements w/unsharp mask
filter, don’t worry because 99.9% of Usenet still can’t tie their own
shoe laces.
Since Painius has obviously gotten himself caught with his pants down
and having broke wind with his intellectual mainstream bigotry that’s
showing us its ugly pecker mindset of perpetual denial and evidence
exclusion. Though in spite of his apparent lack of common knowledge
and seeming inability to accomplish a basic web search for much of
anything without benefit of his LeapFrog browser, how about the rest
of us start sharing a positive/constructive technological thought or
two, such as on behalf of intelligent ETs (meaning us humans if you
like) accomplishing Venus, perhaps even towards sharing a little
something like our William Mook (aka willie.moo) recently contributed
within another topic “Is it this easy to live on Earth?”.
Atmospheric diatoms? (not impossible)
A discovery of Venus diatoms would certainly be nice, however, you
really do not require surface and/or upper atmosphere accommodated
realm of diatoms, or for that matter any viable microbes of complex
local DNA for a given planet or moon to accommodate intelligent other
life, even if it’s only as marginally intelligent and/or as
dumbfounded as we humans.
Supposedly our physically dark moon that’s naked to the tune of the
3e-15 bar lunar environment that's continually surrounded by a highly
charged atmosphere of hot sodium, plus everything else about Selene
being highly electrostatic charged and otherwise fully reactive as the
raw exposed surface density of our Selene/moon actually is, of which
by day or night is saturated in cosmic and local recoil gamma, and by
day is getting its IR roasted surface extra saturated in solar hard to
soft X-rays, plus otherwise representing every bit as bad if not
somewhat worse off than any nasty portion of our Van Allan
magnetosphere badlands, as such and in spite of the daunting odds
supposedly had intelligent life walking about, as though it was
exactly like a certain terrestrial guano island that was entirely
passive, extensively monochromatic of 0.65 ~ 0.75 reflective, as
though merely xenon arc lamp spectrum illuminated.
So, how technically hard or otherwise insurmountable could Venus
really be? Especially if the regular laws of physics do not apply, as
they obviously didn’t on behalf of those with “the right stuff”
accomplishing our Selene/moon.
-
On behalf of Venus oxygen (O2) and what’s otherwise so geothermal of a
newish kind of planetology environment, I’ve added basic search
information that a smart preschool child could probably accomplish on
their little green laptop.
Planet 2 (Venus) would likely represent a tough crowd for a stand up
comedian, although it’s not technically insurmountable unless you had
a mainstream status quo mindset of perpetual denial and otherwise of
evidence exclusion.
Try a LeapFrog Search: Venus oxygen or Venus volcanoes
http://images.google.com/images?q=venus%20oxygen&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
http://www.entertainmentandshowbiz.com/venus-express-searches-for-life-on-earth-200810193508
“We see water and molecular oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere, but Venus
also shows these signatures.”
http://jtintle.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/zoom-in-on-venus%e2%80%99-oxygen-airglow/
Zoom-in on Venus’ oxygen airglow
And the published topics of old and new research goes on and on,
though probably not published in LeapFrog format for the mentally
disadvantaged or in braille format for the sight impaired likes of
Painius and countless others. I believe the Venus O2 science goes
back nearly a couple of decades, to those having used narrow bandpass
optical filters, but never got anything published until more
recently. Even though this Venus O2 layer is well above the acidic
clouds, at least this means that it’s the oxygen that is emerging from
the planet to start off with.
Btw, those robust and fairly acidic clouds would easily provide
teratonnes of pure h2o, as well as subsequently offering nearly
unlimited amounts of o2, h2 and of all things h2o2. Any good 5th
grade science class project would likely prove sufficient.
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/project/virtis/venus-vol.html
BradGuth
> Venus facts and what-ifs, or perhaps don’t ask and don’t tell.
>
> Besides all of the mainstream usual data that we’re supposed to accept
> without doubts, fear or remorse, there’s other interpretations that
> might not be so discouraging or insurmountable as you might think.
>
Notice how the usual Rothschild cabal and their devout minions of
Zionist/Nazis (aka pretend-Atheists like our rabbi clones Saul and
Deco) get all upset and into such a silly brown-nosed huff over the
planet Venus. It's exactly as though they have something to hide.
Why wouldn’t ETs worth half their salt have intentionally planted or
infiltrated a few spooks and moles right here on Earth?
If I were the ET Big Kahuna in charge of mining Venus for all it's
worth, I'd certainly have established my trusty army of brown-nosed
clowns doing as much topic/author stalking and otherwise media
diversion via infowar tactics and otherwise accomplishing as much
damage-control as necessary, especially if the nearby planet to Venus
was populated by the sorts of the most dumbfounded, arrogant as hell,
bigoted as all get out and otherwise downright nasty folks, like some
of us greedy and immoral humans really are.
-
Intelligent other life on planet 2 (Venus) is taboo/nondisclosure
rated.
"Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1"
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
If you can’t manage to do the zoom-in, image crop and turn off the
color format because there is no color in any SAR obtained image to
begin with, much less do the PhotoShop or whatever digital
enlargements w/(unsharp mask) filter, don’t worry yourself because it
seems 99.9% of Usenet still can’t tie their own shoe laces.
-
http://images.google.com/images?q=venus%20oxygen&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
The published topics of old and new research goes on and on, though
probably not in LeapFrog format for the mentally disadvantaged or in
braille format for the sight impaired likes of Painius and countless
others. I believe the Venus O2 science goes back nearly a couple of
decades, to those having used narrow bandpass optical filters, but
never got anything published until more recently. Even though this
Venus O2 layer is well above the acidic clouds, at least this means
that it’s the oxygen that is emerging from the planet to start off
with.
Btw, not to discount those robust and fairly acidic clouds that would
easily provide teratonnes of pure h2o, as well as subsequently
offering nearly unlimited amounts of o2, h2 and of all things h2o2.
Any good 5th grade science class project would likely prove
sufficient.
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/project/virtis/venus-vol.html
“There are some 55,000 volcanoes larger than 1 km across identified
on Venus, spread over 646 volcano fields.”
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/volcanoes/planet_volcano/venus/intro.html
“Venus has more volcanoes than any other planet in the solar system.
Over 1600 major volcanoes or volcanic features are known (see map),
and there are many, many more smaller volcanoes. (No one has yet
counted them all, but the total number may be over 100,000 or even
over 1,000,000).”
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf
Geothermal CO2+S8 gas vents, as interpreted within “An Alternate View
of Venus” by John Ackerman, by rights should have given enough cause
to those interested in learning the truth.
Would any of you folks like to review and offer your best swag as to
my Guth Venus "fluid arch", or is this perfectly natural item still
too closely associated with my Guth Venus township or ET outpost of
those fairly large and complex structures and major tarmac, as
situated within their rational community?
BradGuth
> Venus facts and what-ifs, or perhaps don’t ask and don’t tell.
>
> Besides all of the mainstream usual data that we’re supposed to accept
> without doubts, fear or remorse, there’s other interpretations that
> might not be so discouraging or insurmountable as you might think.
>
> ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
On Oct 7, 7:23 am, nonse...@mynonsense.net wrote:
> All the proofs I have seen online say to multiply Pressure by the
> Volume to get the potential energy of the fluid. I do not understand
> what this energy actually represents? Couldn't you apply the same
> logic to a solid and say it also has potential energy equal to
> Pressure times its volume?
“How does fluid under pressure have potential energy?”
It depends almost entirely on pressure and thermal differentials. In
most cases, fluids that’ll shift or phase to/from vapor are going to
work out better than solids or vapors alone.
Venus offers loads of nifty geophysical plus atmospheric pressure and
otherwise extreme thermal differentials, as well as liquid to vapor
and vise versa once altitudes along with geothermal and geophysical
attributes are taken seriously into account, further enhanced by those
rather unusual daytime/nighttime seasons, not to mention impressive
factors of buoyancy differentials and roughly 90% gravity that’ll make
most everything that’s big and bulky rather easy to accomplish..
Btw; besides the vertical atmospheric stack/chimney or cooling tower
effect, there’s also fluid dynamics via good old gravity to draw upon,
such as from the “fluid arch” at Guth Venus.
Our Selene/moon offers loads of pressure and thermal differentials,
though it's naked surface is offering more of a terrific energy worth
of vacuum and of extreme thermal differential environment along with
1.4 kw/m2 plus secondary IR to work with (ideal for Stirling engines
that can use all the thermal differential they can get). Imagine our
moon as having been relocated to the halo orbit of Earth L1, and of
what one could then accomplish on behalf of salvaging the frail
environment of Earth, and of otherwise living rather efficiently
within suitable habitats constructed along or if need be within the
day/night terminator (all 10,900 km worth of it), not to mention the
256e6 tonne LSE-CM/ISS tethered to the new and improved Selene/moon
L1.
The average lunar density of 3.346 g/cm3 is suggesting of a fairly low
density mantle interior that’s below a relatively thick and robust
basalt crust that’s chuck full of heavy mineral solids and raw
elements such as water at 260 ppm, loads of raw sodium, oxygen,
hydrogen and helium (as in He3) plus any number of easily accessible
radioactive substances. The average lunar surface crust density could
be an impressive 8(+/-4) g/cm3, whereas the upper mantle as little as
3(+/-1) g/cm3.
BradGuth
Notice how the usual Rothschild cabal and their army of devout minions
of Zionist/Nazis (aka pretend-Atheists like our rabbi clones Saul
Levy, Art Deco and perhaps even William Mook) get themselves all upset
and into such a silly brown-nosed huff over the planet Venus. Their
topic/author stalking and perpetual bashings on behalf of their
mainstream status quo are every bit exactly as though they have
something to hide and otherwise a great deal at risk.
Why wouldn’t those ETs working Venus, if worth half their salt, have
intentionally planted or infiltrated a few spooks and moles right here
on Earth?
If I were the ET Big Kahuna in charge of mining Venus for all it's
worth, I'd certainly have established my trusty army of brown-nosed
clowns doing as much topic/author stalking and otherwise media
diversion via infowar tactics, and otherwise accomplishing as much
damage-control as necessary, especially if the nearby planet to Venus
was populated by the sorts of the most dumbfounded, arrogant as hell,
bigoted as all get out and otherwise downright nasty folks, exactly
like some of us greedy and immoral humans really are.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth
Though intelligent other life that does exist/coexist on planet 2
(Venus) is taboo/nondisclosure rated, you can still see for yourself.
"Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1"
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
Thumbnail images, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
If you can’t manage to do the most basic zoom-in, image crop and
turning off the color format because there is no actual color within
any SAR obtained image to begin with, much less do the PhotoShop or
whatever digital enlargements w/(unsharp mask) filter, don’t worry
yourself because, it seems 99.9% of Usenet still can’t tie their own
shoe laces or much less perform basic digital photographic tasks.
If need be, I'll provide those digital enlargements that can be peer
replicated to whatever extent makes you a happy camper.
~ BG
BradGuth
> peer replicated to whatever extent makes you a happy camper.
>
> ~ BG
Come on folks, lets focus on whatever is technically doable, and
easily within a failsafe margin of error.
BradGuth
Isn't it obviously enough to a 5th grader?
Where's your investigative spunk hiding?
Come on folks, let us focus on whatever is technically doable and
easily within a failsafe margin of error. If we're lucky, they'll be
smarter than us. If we're not so lucky, they'll do something GW Bush
stupid, like accusing us of having WMD, and proceed to blow our brains
out.
David Johnston
wrote:
>Isn't it obviously enough to a 5th grader?
>
>Where's your investigative spunk hiding?
Oh. Did you think someone was paying attention to what you were
saying?
BradGuth
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 15:12:42 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Isn't it obviously enough to a 5th grader?
>
> >Where's your investigative spunk hiding?
>
> Oh. Did you think someone was paying attention to what you were
> saying?
So, yourself being a devout Zionist/Nazi means we should pay attention
to whatever you and others of your kind have to say?
You're obviously a resident LLPOF warlord supporter of the GW Bush
kind. Need anything else be said?
What part of evidence excluding and denial do you not love?
Are you also in favor of taking Cuba, by force if necessary?
BradGuth
Somehow I'd missed this one, as I usually skip over anything posted by
rabbi Saul. Terribly sorry about that.
An Alternate View of Venus / by John Ackerman
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf
Plus a few other research accounts here and there, including team
KECK. But none the less subjective, so as usual you can safely
disregard as much deductive logic as you like.
Haven't you noticed how little hard data about the thermal balance is
made available from the ESA Venus EXPRESS mission, as though they
simply do not want to share upon anything that might rock your
mainstream boat.
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Nov 7, 10:53 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 15:12:42 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Isn't it obviously enough to a 5th grader?
>>
>> >Where's your investigative spunk hiding?
>>
>> Oh. Did you think someone was paying attention to what you were
>> saying?
>
>So, yourself being a devout Zionist/Nazi means we should pay attention
>to whatever you and others of your kind have to say?
I didn't say anything about what people "should" pay attention to. I
just pointed out that your long string of posts with only yourself
responding means that people aren't paying attention to you. Bye now.
BradGuth
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 06:20:54 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
You haven't been checking those numbers of times my stuff is getting
picked up by those unable to respond because they'd be directly or
indirectly crucified by their own kind.
Take the Google Groups accounting and multiply that by at least 10
fold.
My GG accounting is usually between 2000 and 3000, with at times
showing greater than 5000. That's perhaps worth an average of 50,000
Usenet looks at whatever I'm contributing. How about your stuff (got
readers)?
Sanforized
I never see his lunacy unless someone like you
replies to him.
BTW, wtf is a "Zionist/Nazi"? Someone with a multiple
personality disorder embracing those polar opposites
in various personalities?
Never mind answering. The above was just a muse.
The one thing I can say about Brad Guth without
fear of contradiction is that there are very few
in usenet quite so insane as he is.
BradGuth
> > wrote:
>
> >>On Nov 7, 10:53 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>
> >>>On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 15:12:42 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>>Isn't it obviously enough to a 5th grader?
>
> >>>>Where's your investigative spunk hiding?
>
> >>>Oh. Did you think someone was paying attention to what you were
> >>>saying?
>
> >>So, yourself being a devout Zionist/Nazi means we should pay attention
> >>to whatever you and others of your kind have to say?
>
> > I didn't say anything about what people "should" pay attention to. I
> > just pointed out that your long string of posts with only yourself
> > responding means that people aren't paying attention to you. Bye now.
>
> I never see his lunacy unless someone like you
> replies to him.
>
> BTW, wtf is a "Zionist/Nazi"? Someone with a multiple
> personality disorder embracing those polar opposites
> in various personalities?
That's actually not too far off the mark. Don’t forget the pretend-
Atheist.
>
> Never mind answering. The above was just a muse.
>
> The one thing I can say about Brad Guth without
> fear of contradiction is that there are very few
> in usenet quite so insane as he is.
And your personal expertise in such profound matters of being insane
is ?????
Why don't those pesky regular laws of physics apply on behalf of
Venus? (or is that insane?)
How about the deductive science of observationology? (or is that also
insane?)
~ BG
foolsrushin.
Sanforized, I don't agree.
http://www.geocities.com/bradguth/
contains both data and arguments. My first read of his stuff,
intriguing, need to think about it, but like Hoagland's stuff, it
challenges Establishment perspectives and values in a big way. Only a
first quick yet intriguing read, in other words... . Brad is often a
bit short-fused, but would never have wasted his time had he thought
the 'contemporary venus profile' viable. Otherwise, if you'll forgive
the joke, he'd be a loony, and he certainly ain't! idiosyncratic!
--
'foolsrushin.'
Sanforized
> On 8 Nov, 18:47, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.com> wrote:
>
>>David Johnston wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 06:20:54 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>On Nov 7, 10:53 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 15:12:42 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Isn't it obviously enough to a 5th grader?
>>
>>>>>>Where's your investigative spunk hiding?
>>
>>>>>Oh. Did you think someone was paying attention to what you were
>>>>>saying?
>>
>>>>So, yourself being a devout Zionist/Nazi means we should pay attention
>>>>to whatever you and others of your kind have to say?
>>
>>>I didn't say anything about what people "should" pay attention to. I
>>>just pointed out that your long string of posts with only yourself
>>>responding means that people aren't paying attention to you. Bye now..
>>
>>I never see his lunacy unless someone like you
>>replies to him.
>>
>>BTW, wtf is a "Zionist/Nazi"? Someone with a multiple
>>personality disorder embracing those polar opposites
>>in various personalities?
>>
>>Never mind answering. The above was just a muse.
>>
>>The one thing I can say about Brad Guth without
>>fear of contradiction is that there are very few
>>in usenet quite so insane as he is.
>
>
> Sanforized, I don't agree.
I've been around usenet a long time. When I said
"without fear of contradiction" I knew someone
probably would.
> http://www.geocities.com/bradguth/
>
> contains both data and arguments. My first read of his stuff,
> intriguing, need to think about it, but like Hoagland's stuff, it
> challenges Establishment perspectives and values in a big way. Only a
> first quick yet intriguing read, in other words... . Brad is often a
> bit short-fused, but would never have wasted his time had he thought
> the 'contemporary venus profile' viable. Otherwise, if you'll forgive
> the joke, he'd be a loony, and he certainly ain't! idiosyncratic!
> --
> 'foolsrushin.'
As a child, or even as an adult, have you seen
faces in the clouds? Is the full moon staring at
you, or is it smiling? I always thought the moon
looked a little worried. How about those canals
on Mars, built by civilizations past? You're
probably too young to know anything about a
comic strip in the newspapers called "Terra"
which was about another earth always on the
opposite side of the sun where we couldn't see
it.
Hocus pocus is just that. Grabbing on to an
occasional image and creating an entire story
out of it isn't reasonable, let alone rational,
unless you're an active science fiction writer.
There are a number of posters to usenet probably
best described as "supermarket checkout tabloid
posters." Guth is one of them.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't think its new but doesn't it keep melting spacecraft?
Mitch Raemsch
BradGuth
You really need to get a fresh grip on your private parts. Good
grief, we have industrial ovens that run as hot or hotter, and
certainly loads of electromechanical technology that's happy at
operational load and otherwise at full stress while at 811 K. What's
your problem? (other than still living in the dark ages)
~ BG
BradGuth
Why are you so deathly afraid of Venus?
It's certainly not technically insurmountable (especially if having
interplanetary travel within your expertise), and Venus does offer
absolute loads of local energy, plus unlimited minerals that are
rather extremely easy to come by.
btw, the image is not hocus-pocus or otherwise artificially modified
to any extent. What you see is exactly what you'll get from the
original 225 meter per pixel resolution, that which you obviously do
not have to deductively interpret squat from if you don't want to, as
obviously you prefer not to interpret anything except a planet of hot
rocks that you'd have to insist are strictly atmospheric greenhouse
heated.
Besides, why exactly are you speaking on behalf of others?
BradGuth
My sticking within the regular laws of physics and otherwise using the
best available science is not loony by way of Einstein or anyone else
having to think or ponder outside the mainstream status quo box.
I'm certainly more dyslexic than idiosyncratic, although I'm not quite
certain how to apply idiosyncratic to my methods or mindset.
btw, it has been years since having revised or updated my web pages,
although the image and my interpretations have not changed one bit on
the fundamental reasoning that ETs and/or perhaps their androids have
been working Venus.
The remote possibility of local Venusians isn't entirely out of the
question, but remains secondary to my primary interpretation of what's
depicted in that radar obtained image that's far more truth worthy
than any kind of visible spectrum recorded by way of optics and CCD if
given the same resolution.
foolsrushin.
> On Nov 8, 1:14 pm, "foolsrushin." <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8 Nov, 18:47, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.com> wrote:
>
> > > David Johnston wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 06:20:54 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >>On Nov 7, 10:53 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> > > >>>On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 15:12:42 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
> > > >>>wrote:
> > > >>>>Isn't it obviously enough to a 5th grader?
>
> > > >>>>Where's your investigative spunk hiding?
>
> > > >>>Oh. Did you think someone was paying attention to what you were
> > > >>>saying?
>
> > > >>So, yourself being a devout Zionist/Nazi means we should pay attention
> > > >>to whatever you and others of your kind have to say?
>
> > > > I didn't say anything about what people "should" pay attention to. I
> > > > just pointed out that your long string of posts with only yourself
> > > > responding means that people aren't paying attention to you. Bye now.
> > > I never see his lunacy unless someone like you
> > > replies to him.
> > > BTW, wtf is a "Zionist/Nazi"? Someone with a multiple
> > > personality disorder embracing those polar opposites
> > > in various personalities
Indeededoody, and I was very, very careful to include an
acknowledgement of your observations by definition to the effect that
they were in some way anachronistic, albeit implicit! As then and now,
I always include a joke or two. Countdown: 10?
Brad, I am not a lose cannon on deck, nor is Richard Hoagland or Mike
Bara, authors of 'Dark Mission: the Secret Histoery of NASA'.
It would be interesting to have your comments on their work! You are
far too intelligent not to know what I am talking about!
http://www.enterprisemission.com/
--
foolsrushin
BradGuth
I'll have to somewhat agree, though I do believe Venus has always been
where the real ET action is, and not that our Selene/moon wouldn't be
within the realm of their expertise. I'm certain there's loads more
interesting ET stuff pertaining to our Selene/moon than DARPA, NASA or
JAXA have been letting on.
Lets hope that ISRO doesn't have those same mainstream status quo
damage-control puppet strings attached to their private parts.
~ BG
BradGuth
I'd fotgotten to mention, it seems their enterprisemission page takes
forever to load, and links are often even slower (as though offered by
an outdated government provided server out of Langley Virginia.
Second little problem, it seems they each believe with every bone and
gram of blood in their bodies that our NASA actually had folks with
"the right stuff" walking about on our physically dark as coal and
otherwise downright nasty Selene/moon.
Sorry, but I smell a room full of rotten eggs, and it isn't me having
another round of flatulence.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”