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