Brad Guth's Credentials

Brad Guth wrote:
Brad Guth's Credentials (aka RESTART),
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...9e06acf5a5c7f7

David Bacque,
Basically you'll have to be smart enough in order to tell by way of
looking at a photo of what's fat and of what's not, and of the same
applied effort of going in for the kill as to interpreting the likes of
realizing upon whatever's afforded by a very big and perfectly natural
terrain that's offering piles of nasty hot rock (aka mountains of rock)
and of what's otherwise not so typically random of geological,
meteorological and subsequently erosion formed patterns.

Obviously a 90 degree down-looking and thus very 2D limited spy-plane
like image isn't hardly worth squat, and worth much less if such were
being solar and secondary terrain illuminated is simply adding further
interpretive insult to injury.

Even Einstein wouldn't be any better off at observationology than a
one-eyed old fart of a village idiot that still can't tie his/her own
shoe laces.

I'm certainly not that sort of a village idiot that's insisting upon
the one and only interpretation as being all there is to say about
what's sufficiently depicted within the primary image that looks as
though it's containing a whole lot more of what's artificial and thus
intelligent (aka perfectly rational) looking than not. Though I'd be
glad to share much more of what I've interpreted if it weren't for all
the continual flak coming my way.

You're the one(s) with the mainstream or bust mindset of continually
going naysay postal without a stitch of remorse nor ever once sharing
one supportive image that's in behalf of depicting whatever else
provides such examples of what looks as though artificial (aka
intelligent/rational) but has been clearly establish as bing 100%
natural. You're the one(s) that's talking your intellectual butt off
as though you're the all-knowing observationology expertise when it
comes down to image interpretation, thus you and of your fine
collective of such high standards and accountability as per the best
ever brown-nosed wizards must have those volumes of examples as to
whatever's the raw basis for establishing your all-knowing expertise.
Therefore, please do share and share alike by way of forking over such
image examples. After all, I always wanted to see whatever it was that
you thought were WMD, but obviously weren't worth squat.

It's your religion of naysayism and mainstream status quoism or bust is
what sucks and blows big-time. You're the ones having to use those
conditional laws of physics and of whatever evidence exclusion suits
your ulterior motives and hidden agenda, and as such represents the
extent of what isn't exactly helping us village idiots to appreciate as
to where and how you've become so gosh darn all-knowing.


You brought up your assertion that this photo proves that there's
life on Venus so you should expect people to question how you reach these
conclusions and if you're qualified in your supposed field of research.

There's actually quite a bit more to it then just the image. However,
if ETs obtained a similar format of radar image that included our
Area-51, of depicting those massive structures and of the rational
infrastructure to boot, and otherwise due to the limited resolution
having few other factors to go by. Chances are that their
interpretation of that image is going to suggest that some form of
intelligent life had coexisted and certainly may yet exist upon Earth.


Come on Brad. Cut the crap and answer the long standing question.
Tell us why we should believe you.

Firstly; you don't have to believe me. Besides accomplishing your
very own photographic interpretations, try going through your NIMA.MIL
for their expertise and ten fold better PhotoShop software, as well as
accepting their best proof-positive efforts that I can't sufficiently
deliver, or better yet is to take the German side of that same SAR
image interpretive team that's offering yet another ten fold better
results.

Secondly; I'm not looking for having to continually prove that I exist
as a real person, or that I actually give a tinkers damn about our
environment or that of the sequestered humanity within. Instead, I
have hundreds if not thousands of questions (some complex and some not
so complex), and unlike yourself I've not the all-knowing expertise nor
resources to devote for resolving such. Therefore, I'm quite
interested in knowing what expertise the likes of yourself or of
whomever you can recruit has to offer.


we'll have to believe that, as you say, you took a guess and that the
photo is still open to other interpretations. Like geological and
meteorological forming of the surface.

Exactly my point, in that there's even room for your naysay/negative
input as well as for those considering upon the positive side of
sharing the what-if Brad Guth was actually right all along, and those
of the 'what the sam hell have folks been waiting for' mindset.

Since my first interpretation of what looks worthy of being seriously
considered for the very first time ever, as per the notion that Venus
may have been and may yet be hosting other intelligent life, I've
learned a great deal more than I'd thought necessary about the planet
Venus, as well as about the laws of physics and somewhat nifty stuff of
biology, and otherwise having greatly appreciated the hard-science and
even the best SWAG efforts of what others seem to have accomplished
without benefit of anyone like myself connecting their somewhat random
dots of information, that have essentially been there all along. The
ESA Venus Express mission should contribute dozens if not hundreds of
such new and improved info dots, and possibly even a few interesting
nighttime images that'll likely knock a few of our socks off.

Too bad our NASA is too MI6/NSA~CIA dumbfounded if not MIB sequestered
to budge an inch off their spendy space-toilet, that's essentially the
necessary mainstream butt sitting that's encharge keeping all of their
perpetrated cold-war Apollo crapolla in check. As otherwise Venus
should prove as rather interesting to those accomplishing what's
supposedly not worth doing by the mindset of those encharge of
sustaining our cloak and dagger agenda.

-

BTW; If you have even one such example of an interesting image via
satellite that looks as though there's something within that's
sufficiently depicting as a community of whatever's
artificial/intelligent to behold, that's proven as not actually being
the case, then please do share. After all, as apparently I'm not at
all like yourself, in that I'm not the least bit all-knowing.

-

Perhaps you folks should trust me the way you might trust a jewboy like
Kinky Friedman, simply because I'm actually one of those few and far
between good guys. As such, I'm sufficiently human and thus I've made
more than my fair share of mistakes, with likely more of such mistakes
to come. Though I seriously try to not make the same mistakes over and
over like a certain resident warlord has managed to accomplish. How
about yourself?

----------


So let's get this straight. Your ability to look at a photo of a person and
decide that they're fat is what you hold out to prove your skill of
"observationalogy"?

Good grief almighty upon another stick, Bacque.
What's to get straight? I've interpreted upon a given image of a
sufficiently fat guy that goes by the name of David, that's
sufficiently true to life of having actually been a sufficiently fat
guy that does in fact exist (you do exist, don't you?). That's
proof-positive that I at least know enough of the basics of
interpreting from such a flat 2D image that hasn't even the superior
SAR imaging benefits nor having the 43° view perspective advantage.


You again say that your interpretation isn't the only possible
interpretation of the photo of Venus. So you agree that your
analysis is without merit.

NO, I don't agree one damn bit. Clearly it is your continual naysay
contribution that's in favor of being "without merit".

My image interpretation is very subjectively my honest interpretation.
What's your status quo interpretation got to share?

BTW No.2; Thanks to your warm and fuzzy GOOGLE/Usenet team of
MI6/NSA~CIA ****ology spooks and of their warm and fuzzy incest of
malware/****ware, as having remotely taken my PC down for the third
time today. I don't suppose that you and of your naysayism of
expertise would care to suggest otherwise?
-
Brad Guth

Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


Bradley-kins old thing,

1.) In essence, you're telling us you have no proof, just protestations
of competence.
2.) Your constant - dare I say, incessant - side tracks on scatology and
politics would suggest your abject and absolute lack any proof of your
claims whatsoever.
3.) Why do you keep cross posting to groups that have asked you to cease
and desist?
4.) If you ever actually post - posting date must be after this message
is on the NG - *_ANY_* proof of a take it to court, smoking gun variety
in regards to either your moon claims, or your venusian claims...

I'll do the following:
1.) humbly beg your apology on this page, and via calligraphy (suitable
for framing)
2.) throw a feast involving my strategic nuclear chili (guaranteed to
discolor standard dishes)
3.) brew 4 bottles of metheglin style mead for you.
4.) 200 dollars

mind you, you have to provide...
1.) proof, post dated on this NG after 19 FEB 2006
2.) said proof must be of the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" sort
3.) said proof must be reviewed by peers in the field

*_WHEN_* you lose, I want you to:
1.) apologize to the members of this newsgroup
2.) refrain from posting your rants here
3.) seek out professional help

respectfully,

Robert H. Juliano

Robert Juliano,
1.) In essence, you're telling us you have no proof, just protestations
of competence.
In essence you're a serious LLPOF sort of brown-nosed guy that'll
deserve being nuked by the likes of Osama bin Laden. Of course, I
don't have the necessary proof of shuch will happen but, lo and behold
I have a good amount of faith as based upon perfectly rational logic
that's telling me that for good reasons it should happen.

What's "protestations" wrong against your incessant naysayism about the
truth and nothing but the truth?

What's "protestations" wrong against your incessant naysayism about the
regular laws of physics?

What's "protestations" wrong against your incessant naysayism about the
hard-science of others?

Where's the supposed "lack of any proof" that your incessant naysayism
speaks of?

Where's your observationology proof-positive as equal or better
examples that establishes my image interpretations of Venus are bogus?

How the hell are you going back to the moon with better than a 60:1
ratio of liftoff/payload of getting such tonnage into lunar orbit,
especially with the likes of such an inert massive rocketship to start
with?

BTW; I've posted more proof-positive than all of your brown-nosed
collective had to offer on behalf of your NASA/Apollo ruse of the
century.
-
Brad Guth

Brad Guth wrote:
Robert Juliano,

1.) In essence, you're telling us you have no proof, just protestations
of competence.

In essence you're a serious LLPOF sort of brown-nosed guy that'll
deserve being nuked by the likes of Osama bin Laden. Of course, I
don't have the necessary proof of shuch will happen but, lo and behold
I have a good amount of faith as based upon perfectly rational logic
that's telling me that for good reasons it should happen.

What's "protestations" wrong against your incessant naysayism about the
truth and nothing but the truth?

What's "protestations" wrong against your incessant naysayism about the
regular laws of physics?

What's "protestations" wrong against your incessant naysayism about the
hard-science of others?

Where's the supposed "lack of any proof" that your incessant naysayism
speaks of?

Where's your observationology proof-positive as equal or better
examples that establishes my image interpretations of Venus are bogus?

How the hell are you going back to the moon with better than a 60:1
ratio of liftoff/payload of getting such tonnage into lunar orbit,
especially with the likes of such an inert massive rocketship to start
with?

BTW; I've posted more proof-positive than all of your brown-nosed
collective had to offer on behalf of your NASA/Apollo ruse of the
century.
-
Brad Guth


Bradley-old-"small sticks" (look it up),

1.) you have yet to prove that you are speaking the truth.
2.) hard science requires repeatable facts
3.) I did a quick search on the web for "obserationology." other than
your screeds, there is no mention of it as a scientific discipline.
4.) I never said I was going back to the moon with a 60:1 ratio.
5.) the challenge was for you to post material after 19 FEB 2006. As you
have gone off on yet another side track, I'll accept your tacit
admission of failure as an indirect statement of you stating you have
been lying all along.
6.) as you have failed in this challenge, when can we expect:
6.1.) your framed apology to this group?
6.2.) your seeking professional help for your delusions of adequacy?
6.3.) your exit from this group?

I was having a somewhat down day, and your desperate attempts to sound
intelligent, not to mention learned, have given me a pick up. Sadly, I
still despise you. I give you fair warning that I wish to never meet you
in real life, as your posts for demonstrated that you are possibly a
danger to yourself and other, and therefore I would feel compelled to
use reasonable force to prevent you from harming myself, or those I
would be with.

Looking forward to an NG without brad guth, unless he somehow comes up
with testable evidence that would stand up in court.

Bob

Dear Robert Juliano (aka damn brown-nosed fool on the hill),
I've run myself out of toilet paper, thus can I use your proven
brown-nose and butt-licking expertise one last time.

BTW; The SAR image (all 36 looks per pixel) is about as "repeatable"
and as hard-science truth worthy as it gets. It's still in the same
old archives and lo and behold if it hasn't changed one damn bit.
-
Brad Guth

Wow! I see that your bed-partner's topic has hit the 500 mark. Seems
that alone ott to be worth at least 5 stars. As I've said before, I do
exist, my interpretations as to what's what about Venus are more than
documented, and even the ongoing weirdness about our moon that hasn't
been walked upon is within the credentials of the regular laws of
physics plus hard-science which so happens to include rocket-science
that can and has been replicated to show that the original Saturn-V
didn't quite get the job accomplished as reported.

The fact that you couldn't locate any scientific venue of
"observationology" is proof again that I'm sufficiently right until
others demonstrate otherwise. If I say it's white and you intend to
keep saying it's black (even though it obviously isn't black), then
what's the point of pursuing any scientific discipline, especially of
those where the usage of eyes and the attached brain is disallowed.

In which case I'll contribute the following interpretation of my Usenet
observation:
Dear usenet spooks, moles and/or wantabe MIBs, the likes of "Me",
"Secret237", "bob232", "Eric Chomko", "Robert Juliano", "Orval
Fairbairn" and as always the warm and fuzzyness of good old but not so
fat anymore "David Bacque", and perhaps even "William Mook" as our
official CIA World Fact Book expertise and otherwise sufficently wordy
naysayer. Do us common folk (apparent scum of the Earth) the greater
good on behalf of humanity by way of providing us with a seriously
big-ass favor, by way of yourself and each of your brown-nosed kind
going all the way to hell, and then some.

Thus far, within this or for that matter most any other Usenet topic
that rubs our NASA or most any agency of our government the wrong way,
it seems perfectly clear that you folks haven't contributed
specifically, or rather not so much as having contributed squat, and
you obviously have no moral intentions of making any revisions in such
actions of your NASA/Apollo approved and scripted intellectual as well
as biological incest, of your intent of going for global domination
without a stitch of remorse at any price, at least not per say of
altering course any time soon, especially when there's still a few
Muslims or anyone else sitting on oil, to get rid of.

Yourself and a pathetically long list of so many others more than
deserve one another's brown-nose to butt interface of being within your
own incest tight circle of a mutated DNA genome that's been directly
related to Hitler, or much worse being related to that of our resident
warlord(GW Bush), whereas you're acting and/or badly reacting as though
exactly like you're one and the same borg collective that badly needs
to get placed upon a stick, exactly how your kind of LLPOF born-again
pagans managed to get that accomplished by way of those nice Romans
(aka partners in crimes against humanity), for the task of eliminating
the pesky likes of Jesus Christ, and/or of how a Pope that was going
seriously postal over those nice Cathars, accomplished one better.

Please do tell; besides your previous and ongoing actions and the
efforts of those you obviously admire for getting the artificial value
of oil headed for $1000/barrel, and thus all other forms of energy
spiked. Is perchance WW-III next on your collective agenda?
-
Brad Guth

"Brad Guth" wrote in message oups.com...

Dear usenet spooks, moles and/or wantabe MIBs, the likes of "Me",
"Secret237", "bob232", "Eric Chomko", "Robert Juliano", "Orval
Fairbairn" and as always the warm and fuzzyness of good old but not so
fat anymore "David Bacque", and perhaps even "William Mook"

BAM! Lookitthat, suckas! I am DA TOP MAN on kook-bat's paranoia
****list! Numero Uno! In your FACE, posers! You be OWNED!

p.s. Brad, do you think anyone ever reads your psychotic tomes? Besides
me, I mean - and I only read them to count the number of times you mention
butts, feces, and other examples of your repressed, incestual, homoerotic
obsessions. I counted 8 this post. Ta!

Me wrote:

BAM! Lookitthat, suckas! I am DA TOP MAN on kook-bat's paranoia
****list! Numero Uno! In your FACE, posers! You be OWNED!


I didn't even rank apparently...how far I have dropped from my former
days of grandeur as an incest-cloned Borg. :-(

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message ...

I didn't even rank apparently...how far I have dropped from my former days of grandeur as an incest-cloned Borg. :-(

It's nobody's fault but your own, Pat. You haven't been to any Third-Reich New-World-Order MIB
meetings in over a year, and you NEVER come to any incest-cloned Borg parties anymore either.
Why, I bet your nose isn't even brown anymore!

p.s. I'm going to increase the mind-control beam into Guthy's house by 8dB tonight while
he's asleep. We have a couple of hours alien abduction experiences that we're going to
playback into his cerebral cortex tonight, which oughtta liven up his posts a little. Besides,
he was actually kinda enjoying the gay stuff we've been playing lately, surprise surprise.

Pat Flannery wrote:
Me wrote:

BAM! Lookitthat, suckas! I am DA TOP MAN on kook-bat's paranoia
****list! Numero Uno! In your FACE, posers! You be OWNED!


I didn't even rank apparently...how far I have dropped from my former
days of grandeur as an incest-cloned Borg. :-(

Pat

Yes, I've replaced you because I've taken the trouble to read Brad's
**** and tell him where his ideas diverge from reality in detail. I'll
be quiet for a while and see how the frequency drops - that tells a lot
about deep psychological processes.

Hah... my ex-wife did her PhD thesis on response latency. That's the
time it takes between being presented with a question and giving an
answer. Detailed analysis of response latency, some say analysis of
the silences in a conversation, can give you very interesting clues as
to how data is structured in a person's head.

For example, you might ask a person if a bird has feathers. they might
say 'yes' and it might take 0.1 seconds for them to respond. Then, you
might ask if a bird has a beak, and they might say 'yes' and take 0.11
seconds to respond. Then, you might ask of a bird has skin. They
might say 'yes' and it might take 0.2 seconds to respond.

What's up with that?

Well, there may be an intermediate thought process that connects skin
and bird. For example, a bird is an animal an animals have skin...

The interesting thing is that a detailed analysis of 100 questions -
shades of Ridley Scott's Voigt Kampff test in Blade Runner (do androids
dream of electric sheep!) - but instead of involuntary dialation of the
iris, or other biometric factors, this particular test looks at
silences - the response latency of response. And from that we can
build the distances between articles of knowledge.

The cool thing is that you can find out things you don't ask directly
about. For example, you can find out about a thing called animals, but
you never asked about animals diretly - you only asked about skin!

Another cool thing is that response latency relates to the structure of
knowledge even if someone is lying. So, if the answers were 'no'
above, the response latency structure would be preserved, perhaps with
a little distortion.

What this means is that you can analyze the recording of two people
talking to one another - and both of them are lying through their teeth
- nevertheless, a careful analysis of what they're saying - looking at
the response latency - you can find out about something that neither of
these liars ever even mentioned!!!!

Talk about a powerful technique! Its almost as good as ESP. In fact,
when we are able to build mental models, or models of the brain
accurately, expect 'mind reading' computer programs to be developed
that examines all the silent signs of knowledge and is able to
efficiently analyze them to garner a great wealth of knowledge...
hahaha

Hey, that means I'm number two !! I'll take it, after all a Silver
medal ain't too bad ... What do you think Brad ??

I'll make sure the beam is pointed the right direction, just let me
know what episodes of alien abduction experiences you want him to
"receive" tonight, the gay ones were pretty good weren't they ?? He
was really getting into it wasn't he ??



BAM! Lookitthat, suckas! I am DA TOP MAN on kook-bat's paranoia
****list! Numero Uno! In your FACE, posers! You be OWNED!
p.s. I'm going to increase the mind-control beam into Guthy's house by
8dB tonight while
he's asleep. We have a couple of hours alien abduction experiences
that we're going to
playback into his cerebral cortex tonight, which oughtta liven up his
posts a little. Besides, he was actually kinda enjoying the gay stuff
we've been playing lately, surprise surprise.