GuthBall's Venusians ...

On Monday, August 25, 2014 5:15:19 AM UTC-7, Dean Markley wrote:
On Friday, August 22, 2014 7:22:48 PM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:

Wow, what a bunch of blank-line crap and improper quoting to boot, that you and Hagar got going there. I must have blown out all of your mainstream status quo gaskets.



With everything getting mixed together, how exactly does anyone tell who said what?



You Semites certainly get upset easily enough, with context out of context and improper reply format structure to boot, plus you stammering around like that chicken with its head cut off, it looks as though I won this round.



Observationology is obviously not your thing, just like deductive reasoning as based upon the best available science is obviously quite upsetting to those of your dysfunctional faith-based kind.



If the innards of Venus are anything even a little like Earth, the internal makings of gasses (including water vapor) and the expulsion of those plus solids is likely capable of such geothermal vents exceeding the surface pressure by at least 100 bar, and quite possibly in volcanic eruptions capable of being worth 1000 bar.



Perhaps you should read more than those popup books.


With your self-proclaimed expertise in "observationology", I would think you could certainly read what was posted.

Observationology is a fully subjective science, as based extensively upon real life visualized experience. At least I've never implied otherwise. However, Photogrammetry is what helped us (most extensively utilized by England) to win WW2.

So, are you suggesting that photogrammetry is equally as bogus as observationology?

Are you suggesting that nothing of any radar imaging can be utilized on behalf of identifying squat?

If you can't deductively interpret any image, then you have no way of ever knowing the Magellan mission was even radar imaging the surface of Venus, and better yet you can't accept anything of our NASA/Apollo era as having been recorded via Kodak film.

How is it that common geology rock as clearly depicted as random patterns on the surface of Venus, as represented by much smaller or tighter pattern items than the unusual items of substantially larger scale and of their geometrically unnatural features that I've pointed out, can be accepted as for what they are as perfectly natural rock, and not otherwise any shred of support as for considering those of whatever larger items as I've identified?

When we look up the words "bigot", "hypocrite" and "sanctimonious", is your name closely associated as an analogy along with their definitions?

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
...

On Monday, August 25, 2014 5:15:19 AM UTC-7, Dean Markley wrote:
On Friday, August 22, 2014 7:22:48 PM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:

Wow, what a bunch of blank-line crap and improper quoting to boot,
that you and Hagar got going there. I must have blown out all of
your mainstream status quo gaskets.



With everything getting mixed together, how exactly does anyone tell
who said what?



You Semites certainly get upset easily enough, with context out of
context and improper reply format structure to boot, plus you
stammering around like that chicken with its head cut off, it looks
as though I won this round.



Observationology is obviously not your thing, just like deductive
reasoning as based upon the best available science is obviously
quite upsetting to those of your dysfunctional faith-based kind.



If the innards of Venus are anything even a little like Earth, the
internal makings of gasses (including water vapor) and the expulsion
of those plus solids is likely capable of such geothermal vents
exceeding the surface pressure by at least 100 bar, and quite
possibly in volcanic eruptions capable of being worth 1000 bar.



Perhaps you should read more than those popup books.


With your self-proclaimed expertise in "observationology", I would
think you could certainly read what was posted.

Observationology is a fully subjective science, as based extensively
upon real life visualized experience. At least I've never implied
otherwise. However, Photogrammetry is what helped us (most extensively
utilized by England) to win WW2.

So, are you suggesting that photogrammetry is equally as bogus as
observationology?

Are you suggesting that nothing of any radar imaging can be utilized on
behalf of identifying squat?

If you can't deductively interpret any image, then you have no way of
ever knowing the Magellan mission was even radar imaging the surface of
Venus, and better yet you can't accept anything of our NASA/Apollo era
as having been recorded via Kodak film.

How is it that common geology rock as clearly depicted as random
patterns on the surface of Venus, as represented by much smaller or
tighter pattern items than the unusual items of substantially larger
scale and of their geometrically unnatural features that I've pointed
out, can be accepted as for what they are as perfectly natural rock, and
not otherwise any shred of support as for considering those of whatever
larger items as I've identified?

When we look up the words "bigot", "hypocrite" and "sanctimonious", is
your name closely associated as an analogy along with their definitions?


*** Yes ... you just love to make up **** ... and then try to peddle it
as candy.
You are the poster boy for birth control to be made retro-active.

On Monday, August 25, 2014 12:09:27 PM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message


Observationology is a fully subjective science, as based extensively

upon real life visualized experience. At least I've never implied

otherwise. However, Photogrammetry is what helped us (most extensively

utilized by England) to win WW2.



So, are you suggesting that photogrammetry is equally as bogus as

observationology?



Are you suggesting that nothing of any radar imaging can be utilized on

behalf of identifying squat?



If you can't deductively interpret any image, then you have no way of

ever knowing the Magellan mission was even radar imaging the surface of

Venus, and better yet you can't accept anything of our NASA/Apollo era

as having been recorded via Kodak film.



How is it that common geology rock as clearly depicted as random

patterns on the surface of Venus, as represented by much smaller or

tighter pattern items than the unusual items of substantially larger

scale and of their geometrically unnatural features that I've pointed

out, can be accepted as for what they are as perfectly natural rock, and

not otherwise any shred of support as for considering those of whatever

larger items as I've identified?



When we look up the words "bigot", "hypocrite" and "sanctimonious", is
your name closely associated as an analogy along with their definitions?



*** Yes ... you just love to make up **** ... and then try to peddle i
as candy.

You are the poster boy for birth control to be made retro-active.


In other words, I've nailed it.

On Monday, August 25, 2014 8:59:57 AM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:
"snipped to make it easier for Brad to read"
With your self-proclaimed expertise in "observationology", I would think you could certainly read what was posted.



Observationology is a fully subjective science, as based extensively upon real life visualized experience. At least I've never implied otherwise. However, Photogrammetry is what helped us (most extensively utilized by England) to win WW2.



So, are you suggesting that photogrammetry is equally as bogus as observationology?



Are you suggesting that nothing of any radar imaging can be utilized on behalf of identifying squat?



If you can't deductively interpret any image, then you have no way of ever knowing the Magellan mission was even radar imaging the surface of Venus, and better yet you can't accept anything of our NASA/Apollo era as having been recorded via Kodak film.



How is it that common geology rock as clearly depicted as random patterns on the surface of Venus, as represented by much smaller or tighter pattern items than the unusual items of substantially larger scale and of their geometrically unnatural features that I've pointed out, can be accepted as for what they are as perfectly natural rock, and not otherwise any shred of support as for considering those of whatever larger items as I've identified?



When we look up the words "bigot", "hypocrite" and "sanctimonious", is your name closely associated as an analogy along with their definitions?

Re-read your first two sentences and you might understand why you are not a scientist because you're trying to correlate two unrelated items. And even so, correlation does not mean causation.

Point blank, Brad: You are full of **** and only impress the other kooks and conspiracy nuts on here. You get your ass handed to you daily but you keep coming back, most likely because you like/need the attention.

I can understand that but don't try to pass yourself off as a scientist, professional or amateur just because you have a talent for stringing technical terms together.

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
...

On Monday, August 25, 2014 12:09:27 PM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message


Observationology is a fully subjective science, as based extensively

upon real life visualized experience. At least I've never implied

otherwise. However, Photogrammetry is what helped us (most
extensively

utilized by England) to win WW2.



So, are you suggesting that photogrammetry is equally as bogus as

observationology?



Are you suggesting that nothing of any radar imaging can be utilized
on

behalf of identifying squat?



If you can't deductively interpret any image, then you have no way
of

ever knowing the Magellan mission was even radar imaging the surface
of

Venus, and better yet you can't accept anything of our NASA/Apollo
era

as having been recorded via Kodak film.



How is it that common geology rock as clearly depicted as random

patterns on the surface of Venus, as represented by much smaller or

tighter pattern items than the unusual items of substantially larger

scale and of their geometrically unnatural features that I've
pointed

out, can be accepted as for what they are as perfectly natural rock,
and

not otherwise any shred of support as for considering those of
whatever

larger items as I've identified?



When we look up the words "bigot", "hypocrite" and "sanctimonious",
is
your name closely associated as an analogy along with their
definitions?



*** Yes ... you just love to make up **** ... and then try to peddle
i
as candy.

You are the poster boy for birth control to be made retro-active.


In other words, I've nailed it.


*** You haven't nailed anything in your life ...
and NO ... spanking Frank does NOT count

On Monday, August 25, 2014 1:13:10 PM UTC-7, Dean Markley wrote:
On Monday, August 25, 2014 8:59:57 AM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:

"snipped to make it easier for Brad to read"

With your self-proclaimed expertise in "observationology", I would think you could certainly read what was posted.







Observationology is a fully subjective science, as based extensively upon real life visualized experience. At least I've never implied otherwise. However, Photogrammetry is what helped us (most extensively utilized by England) to win WW2.







So, are you suggesting that photogrammetry is equally as bogus as observationology?







Are you suggesting that nothing of any radar imaging can be utilized on behalf of identifying squat?







If you can't deductively interpret any image, then you have no way of ever knowing the Magellan mission was even radar imaging the surface of Venus, and better yet you can't accept anything of our NASA/Apollo era as having been recorded via Kodak film.







How is it that common geology rock as clearly depicted as random patterns on the surface of Venus, as represented by much smaller or tighter pattern items than the unusual items of substantially larger scale and of their geometrically unnatural features that I've pointed out, can be accepted as for what they are as perfectly natural rock, and not otherwise any shred of support as for considering those of whatever larger items as I've identified?







When we look up the words "bigot", "hypocrite" and "sanctimonious", is your name closely associated as an analogy along with their definitions?



Re-read your first two sentences and you might understand why you are not a scientist because you're trying to correlate two unrelated items. And even so, correlation does not mean causation.



Point blank, Brad: You are full of **** and only impress the other kooks and conspiracy nuts on here. You get your ass handed to you daily but you keep coming back, most likely because you like/need the attention.



I can understand that but don't try to pass yourself off as a scientist, professional or amateur just because you have a talent for stringing technical terms together.

In other words, you're saying the British are still telling us lies as of long after WW2?

Do you not allow mirrors in your home?

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
...

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 10:26:30 PM UTC-7,
wrote:
On Thursday, August 21, 2014 4:19:27 PM UTC+12, Brad Guth wrote:

On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 6:20:23 PM UTC-7,
wrote:



Saul acts like I created all these stories. How does that work?







If you don't think UFOs are real, here's someone who will tell you
you're right.







https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrVLHRgm1tc



That video is only partially correct. Our government is getting
better at being prepared to deal with an outbreak of ET envy and
worship. Obviously the oligarchs, Bilderbergs and Rothschilds want
noting of ETs to become accepted as the real thing, because that
would be the end of their freeloading era.



The truly rich and powerful have simply gotten use to being in
charge regardless of whomever we elect or appoint, and they'll do
just about anything in order to keep it that way.


The other theory is that ETI is a hoax used to bring in a new
scientific 'Royal Rights of Kings' - where the new Royals are the
contactees to whom the military give their support.


One can see this happening quite readily in a time of crisis and
general disillusionment.


All that's needed is a fusion powered Coanda effect craft,
cybernetically operated, plastic surgery modified, 'alien' and a
compliant media in conjunction with a psychotronically controlled
contactee.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy1piU_Up0E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN9OXFSvtqs


Governments and their faith-based peers (upper caste oligarchs,
Bilderbergs and Rothschilds) have been systematically screwing with us
from the very get go.

Something about the planet Venus is very real.

What the planet Venus has going is that of a highly dynamic and
geothermal heated surface, with lots of active geothermal vents spewing
lots of vapors and some metals.

Under that amount of pressure and slightly reduced gravity, the mostly
CO2 and S8 atmosphere at the surface acts more like liquid fountains.
An arch of something fluid can be seen within the GuthVenus site.

Sulfur at 14.5 psi needs 445 C (718 K) to boil, and no doubt whatsoever
that those geothermal vents are well above those marks.

"Under appropriate conditions, sulfur vapor can contain S, S2, S4, S6,
and S8."

http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Inorgani...stry_of_Sulfur

"Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) reduces by 90% the amount of O2 demanded by the
brain"
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm

Venus should have more than its fair share of hydrogen sulfide, and the
atmospheric pressure of 94 bar is only going to further minimize the
need for all that much O2.

*** Well, that should make it nice and cozy for that Goth/Venus veggie
garden ...

Also, if the surface atmosphere is considered as dry (near zero
humidity), we can figure on that element of sulfur being relatively
inert.

*** But you just told us that the atmosphere of Venus was abundant with
H2O ... so which is it, you yammering idiot ???

Of course those being perpetually naysay and typically superior in
knowing all there ever is to know about everything, are going to assume
I meant to say that Venus is Goldilocks suitable, which of course I've
never suggested. However, what this does mean is as long as whatever
equipment and/or technology doesn't sweat(inside or out), it's going to
be perfectly good to go within that extremely heavy, hot and generally
nasty atmosphere that's not actually acidic because of its extremely low
water vapor content. The atmospheric pressure and heat are not
insurmountable issues, as complex life can easily adapt to such
conditions of pressure and heat can otherwise be managed via technology.

*** You are the pathetic poster child for a waste of human sperm ... and
all your dad wanted was a BJ ...

On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:19:59 AM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message

...



On Thursday, August 21, 2014 10:26:30 PM UTC-7,

wrote:

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 4:19:27 PM UTC+12, Brad Guth wrote:



On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 6:20:23 PM UTC-7,

wrote:







Saul acts like I created all these stories. How does that work?















If you don't think UFOs are real, here's someone who will tell you

you're right.















https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrVLHRgm1tc







That video is only partially correct. Our government is getting

better at being prepared to deal with an outbreak of ET envy and

worship. Obviously the oligarchs, Bilderbergs and Rothschilds want

noting of ETs to become accepted as the real thing, because that

would be the end of their freeloading era.







The truly rich and powerful have simply gotten use to being in

charge regardless of whomever we elect or appoint, and they'll do

just about anything in order to keep it that way.





The other theory is that ETI is a hoax used to bring in a new

scientific 'Royal Rights of Kings' - where the new Royals are the

contactees to whom the military give their support.





One can see this happening quite readily in a time of crisis and

general disillusionment.





All that's needed is a fusion powered Coanda effect craft,

cybernetically operated, plastic surgery modified, 'alien' and a

compliant media in conjunction with a psychotronically controlled

contactee.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy1piU_Up0E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN9OXFSvtqs





Governments and their faith-based peers (upper caste oligarchs,

Bilderbergs and Rothschilds) have been systematically screwing with us

from the very get go.



Something about the planet Venus is very real.



What the planet Venus has going is that of a highly dynamic and

geothermal heated surface, with lots of active geothermal vents spewing

lots of vapors and some metals.



Under that amount of pressure and slightly reduced gravity, the mostly

CO2 and S8 atmosphere at the surface acts more like liquid fountains.

An arch of something fluid can be seen within the GuthVenus site.



Sulfur at 14.5 psi needs 445 C (718 K) to boil, and no doubt whatsoever

that those geothermal vents are well above those marks.



"Under appropriate conditions, sulfur vapor can contain S, S2, S4, S6,

and S8."



http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Inorgani...stry_of_Sulfur



"Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) reduces by 90% the amount of O2 demanded by the

brain"

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm



Venus should have more than its fair share of hydrogen sulfide, and the

atmospheric pressure of 94 bar is only going to further minimize the

need for all that much O2.



*** Well, that should make it nice and cozy for that Goth/Venus veggie

garden ...



Also, if the surface atmosphere is considered as dry (near zero

humidity), we can figure on that element of sulfur being relatively

inert.



*** But you just told us that the atmosphere of Venus was abundant with
H2O ... so which is it, you yammering idiot ???


Of course those being perpetually naysay and typically superior in

knowing all there ever is to know about everything, are going to assume

I meant to say that Venus is Goldilocks suitable, which of course I've

never suggested. However, what this does mean is as long as whatever

equipment and/or technology doesn't sweat(inside or out), it's going to

be perfectly good to go within that extremely heavy, hot and generally

nasty atmosphere that's not actually acidic because of its extremely low

water vapor content. The atmospheric pressure and heat are not

insurmountable issues, as complex life can easily adapt to such

conditions of pressure and heat can otherwise be managed via technology.


*** You are the pathetic poster child for a waste of human sperm ... and
all your dad wanted was a BJ ...

Below 16 km, where it's mostly hot as hell, there's not all that much H2O unless its emerging from a given geothermal vent.

Of course if I were as Jewish and on-the-job trained as yourself, I wouldn't have to bother with researching, discovering or inventing anything. Insider trading, resource hoarding, market speculating and money changing is obviously good enough for those of your kind.

No wonder topic/author stalking, hijacking and bashing is always required by those of your overpaid kind.