In order to ever revise upon the official published scientific word of
God (aka NASA), about how hot and nasty the planet Venus actually has
been geothermally created from the bottom up, for even that much to
happen one needs to appreciate the geothermal heat loss of Venus is
truly impressive, not to mention rather telling of a somewhat newish
or possibly renewed kind of formulated/reformulated planet that's in
the proto-Earth era, of the natural planetology doing its long drawn
out thing of cooling off the best it can, of which has been easier
said than done because if the mostly dry CO2 and highly insulative
layers of those S8 acidic clouds.

There is nothing of physics or via the best available cache of
existing science that actually forbids or otherwise excludes the
potential of Venus hosting other intelligent life, be that of a local
evolved species or especially on behalf of an ET (including us, though
obviously not in the buff) kind of sufficient intelligence that's
perfectly capable of existing/coexisting on Venus. Surviving the
toasty geothermal forced environment of Venus is simply not
insurmountable for anything but as interpreted by those faith-based
diehard nayism folks that simply can't ever admit to being wrong.

An Alternate View of Venus / by John Ackerman
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf
has this peer replicated science of thermal energy balance, on behalf
of the surplus energy outflow pegged at 21 w/m2, but I recall having
also seen this published as 20 w/m2, as well as other published
science as specifying upon the solar influx reaching the surface being
of less than 150 w/m2 out of the 2625~2660 w/m2 is not greater than
5.66% of solar potential, and much of which gets through to that
already toasty surface isn't even of the IR spectrum, and of course
you'd have to divide that in half because the nighttime season is not
exactly absorbing squat worth of solar photons.

The Planet Venus / By David Harry Grinspoon is yet another well enough
published resource of old but viable data that tells us we haven't a
purely atmospheric solar-induced greenhouse situation, even though
critical science data from multiple probes had been intentionally
removed/excluded so as to continually benefit the original solar-
atmospheric greenhouse as the one and only consideration, because
Venus is supposed to be of the exact same age and origin as Earth, as
having been stipulated by those faith-based conditional laws of
physics.

David Grinspoon quotes: http://thinkexist.com/quotes/david_grinspoon/
"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."

"We need more Venus missions to really answer the biggest mysteries
about the planet. Venus Express will be a great mission and will tell
us a lot about the planet, but I think to really make the next leaps
in understanding Venus we're going to have to do something more than
just orbit the planet. We need to take the plunge and explore the
clouds and the surface directly."

"They might do photosynthesis in the ultraviolet as opposed to the
visual spectrum. It's a tremendous amount of energy if you can make
use of it instead of being killed by it. It's unusual, but natural
selection makes the best out of adversity."

Often such worthy tidbits of scientific truths about Venus have been
published within Nature.com, then forever banished away from the
educational mindset and mainstream media that simply can't ever be
allowed to revise squat without breaking wind and igniting such.
ESA's Venus EXPRESS has been keeping itself unusually quiet these
days, as though there's a whole lot more to the Venus thermal energy
balance than had ever been previously allowed into the mainstream, as
to ponder along with any degree of our deductive reasoning is
apparently another big taboo.
.. - Brad Guth



On Mar 6, 9:47 am, BradGuth wrote:
Though many official image archives exist, thanks again to our once
upon a time Usenet contributor "tomcat", for having posted the
optional link to this somewhat older but updated collective page of
our Venus surface images.http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/th...humbnails.html

Some of the most interesting of natural as well as AI(artificial
intelligence) worthy information can be found within image No.17 from
the top left, as clearly situated within the 225 m/pixel composite
frame of view by way of such radar imaging obtained pixels that just
so happens to include the robust, rather sizable and somewhat complex
community of structures with 'GUTH Venus', of which by all means you
should apply your very own PhotoShop or Photo whatever resampling/
enlargement of at least 3X, along with using whatever's your best
unsharp-mask filter plus other image cleaning or contrast options
you'd care to apply. Try to remember, that a purely negative or
naysay mindset of a true rusemaster or of faith-based formulated
denial simply can not accomplish such PhotoShop enlargements, at least
not without making this image look far worse off than it really is.

"Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1"http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.htmlhttp://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif

First of all, you do not have to be an Einstein or most any other kind
of wizard, just as long as you're not deductive impaired, logic
impaired or faith-based mindset against ETs existing/coexisting upon
other than Earth. Not that Earth isn't entirely extra special and
perhaps far between similar wet and badly polluted worlds capable of
accommodating our forms of complex life as is, as well as in the buff,
so to speak.

Speaking of other worlds; if you still can not manage to zoom in and/
or enlarge sufficiently in order to find this complex community of
interesting pixels on your own, much less properly photo enlarge for a
somewhat better view, then perhaps you are not nearly as good at basic
observationology as you think you are. Remember that the small
details of the Venus terrain are in fact quite visible and of
impressive geology formations as is, and of whatever else is looking
as though intelligent created or as modified to suit are those items
of somewhat larger pixel patterns. So, in all fairness you can't
possibly claim seeing one set of pixels as forming a given pattern
related to whatever is perfectly natural, as clearly being the case,
and then not deductively interpret those of other pixels of them more
substantial patterns that look as though anything but natural, or
perhaps that's just my open mindset and otherwise deductive logic
kicking in.
- Brad Guth -