Venus is not too hot to touch with the Ovglove

On May 29, 5:37 pm, ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
At losing 20.5 w/m2, Venus is still not the least bit too hot to touch
with the Ovglove, much less of any problem for a composite rigid
airship.

Comparing Earth/Venus is not even a fair game, as to any half smart ET
village idiot, the planet Venus wins every time.

Too bad that Cambridge and the like are too mainstream snookered and
otherwise dumbfounded past the point of no return, as to know about
such things.

Too bad that ADOBE PhotoShop or the likes of digital photographic
enlargement alternatives that are even better, is still so taboo/
nondisclosure rated.

Too bad them pesky laws of physics and of whatever's the best
available science can't function off-world. I obviously didn't know
that such regular laws of physics and of whatever science were so
unusually terrestrial limited.
-
Brad Guth
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell

On Apr 4, 5:07 pm, wrote:
As long as you don't run yourself out of ice cold beer and pizza, I
don't see all that much of a problem.

As long as you've got way more spare/renewable energy at your disposal
than you could possibly know what to do with, and having that nifty
thermal suit made by Ovglove, where's the big-ass insurmountable
problem with taking that hot-foot of a toasty stroll onVenus?

CO2--CO/O2 is not hardly a technical problem, hasn't been for a good
decade or more.

Pure H2O as easily extracted from those somewhat cool nighttime acidic
clouds (above the S8 layer) is simply another mission positive win-
win.

The 65 kg/m3 worth of buoyancy as working along with the 90.5% gravity
is offering a couple of other nifty factors that'll work rather well
for your composite rigid airship (just like on behalf of those
Venusian composite rigid airships).

If you're any damn good at PhotoShop, goto:http://guthvenus.tripod.com/http://g...om/gv-town.htm
or best you start with your very own look-see at the following
official image site:http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif

The 36 look per pixel of that GIF image format starts getting
interesting at being 3X resampled, and then giving it all the best
PhotoShop or whatever else you can muster, although the original GIF
1:1 image was actually good enough for my PhotoShop configured brain
to deductively interpret upon what's most likely artificial as opposed
to what's perfectly natural. 36 looks per pixel is offering a lot of
truthworthy image data to start with, so it's a good one to stick with
rather than dealing with their individual 75 meter/pixel versions as
having combined but four looks per pixel.

Don't try to process the entire image unless you've got one heck of a
nifty PC or MAC. Try clipping out only the small portion of the total
image that's roughly a third up from the bottom and just to the right
of center, as we're talking about utilizing less than 10% or perhaps
even as little as 5% of that primary GIF image, and to process upon
just that much shouldn't traumatise your memory or performance PC or
MAC.

I'll review each of your results, that by rights should become a whole
lot better than mine. Obviously anyone can over/under force those
PhotoShop refinements, well past the point of no return, so don't do
that. My extremely old version of PhotoShop can't accomplish much
better than 8X resampling without losing ground, and besides, we don't
actually require much better than 6X for most others to see most
clearly what I'd interpreted from the original 1:1 format.

Thanks once again to 'tomcat' for also having posted this updated page
ofVenusimages.http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/th...humbnails.html

It's image No.17 from the top left being the one that so happens to
include the robust, sizable and somewhat complex community of 'GUTHVenus'.
"Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles,Venusfrom Magellan Cycle 1"http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.htm...
-BradGuth

Quiet, ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

Double-A wrote:
On May 29, 5:37 pm, ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
At losing 20.5 w/m2, Venus is still not the least bit too hot to touch
with the Ovglove, much less of any problem for a composite rigid
airship.

Comparing Earth/Venus is not even a fair game, as to any half smart ET
village idiot, the planet Venus wins every time.

Too bad that Cambridge and the like are too mainstream snookered and
otherwise dumbfounded past the point of no return, as to know about
such things.

Too bad that ADOBE PhotoShop or the likes of digital photographic
enlargement alternatives that are even better, is still so taboo/
nondisclosure rated.

Too bad them pesky laws of physics and of whatever's the best
available science can't function off-world. I obviously didn't know
that such regular laws of physics and of whatever science were so
unusually terrestrial limited.
-
Brad Guth
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell

On Apr 4, 5:07 pm, wrote:
As long as you don't run yourself out of ice cold beer and pizza, I
don't see all that much of a problem.

As long as you've got way more spare/renewable energy at your disposal
than you could possibly know what to do with, and having that nifty
thermal suit made by Ovglove, where's the big-ass insurmountable
problem with taking that hot-foot of a toasty stroll onVenus?

CO2--CO/O2 is not hardly a technical problem, hasn't been for a good
decade or more.

Pure H2O as easily extracted from those somewhat cool nighttime acidic
clouds (above the S8 layer) is simply another mission positive win-
win.

The 65 kg/m3 worth of buoyancy as working along with the 90.5% gravity
is offering a couple of other nifty factors that'll work rather well
for your composite rigid airship (just like on behalf of those
Venusian composite rigid airships).

If you're any damn good at PhotoShop, goto:http://guthvenus.tripod.com/http://g...om/gv-town.htm
or best you start with your very own look-see at the following
official image site:http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif

The 36 look per pixel of that GIF image format starts getting
interesting at being 3X resampled, and then giving it all the best
PhotoShop or whatever else you can muster, although the original GIF
1:1 image was actually good enough for my PhotoShop configured brain
to deductively interpret upon what's most likely artificial as opposed
to what's perfectly natural. 36 looks per pixel is offering a lot of
truthworthy image data to start with, so it's a good one to stick with
rather than dealing with their individual 75 meter/pixel versions as
having combined but four looks per pixel.

Don't try to process the entire image unless you've got one heck of a
nifty PC or MAC. Try clipping out only the small portion of the total
image that's roughly a third up from the bottom and just to the right
of center, as we're talking about utilizing less than 10% or perhaps
even as little as 5% of that primary GIF image, and to process upon
just that much shouldn't traumatise your memory or performance PC or
MAC.

I'll review each of your results, that by rights should become a whole
lot better than mine. Obviously anyone can over/under force those
PhotoShop refinements, well past the point of no return, so don't do
that. My extremely old version of PhotoShop can't accomplish much
better than 8X resampling without losing ground, and besides, we don't
actually require much better than 6X for most others to see most
clearly what I'd interpreted from the original 1:1 format.

Thanks once again to 'tomcat' for also having posted this updated page
ofVenusimages.http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/th...humbnails.html

It's image No.17 from the top left being the one that so happens to
include the robust, sizable and somewhat complex community of 'GUTHVenus'.
"Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles,Venusfrom Magellan Cycle 1"http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.htm...
-BradGuth

Quiet, ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

On May 29, 7:44 pm, ah wrote:
Double-A wrote:
On May 29, 5:37 pm, ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
At losing 20.5 w/m2, Venus is still not the least bit too hot to touch
with the Ovglove, much less of any problem for a composite rigid
airship.

Comparing Earth/Venus is not even a fair game, as to any half smart ET
village idiot, the planet Venus wins every time.

Too bad that Cambridge and the like are too mainstream snookered and
otherwise dumbfounded past the point of no return, as to know about
such things.

Too bad that ADOBE PhotoShop or the likes of digital photographic
enlargement alternatives that are even better, is still so taboo/
nondisclosure rated.

Too bad them pesky laws of physics and of whatever's the best
available science can't function off-world. I obviously didn't know
that such regular laws of physics and of whatever science were so
unusually terrestrial limited.
-
Brad Guth
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell

On Apr 4, 5:07 pm, wrote:
As long as you don't run yourself out of ice cold beer and pizza, I
don't see all that much of a problem.

As long as you've got way more spare/renewable energy at your disposal
than you could possibly know what to do with, and having that nifty
thermal suit made by Ovglove, where's the big-ass insurmountable
problem with taking that hot-foot of a toasty stroll onVenus?

CO2--CO/O2 is not hardly a technical problem, hasn't been for a good
decade or more.

Pure H2O as easily extracted from those somewhat cool nighttime acidic
clouds (above the S8 layer) is simply another mission positive win-
win.

The 65 kg/m3 worth of buoyancy as working along with the 90.5% gravity
is offering a couple of other nifty factors that'll work rather well
for your composite rigid airship (just like on behalf of those
Venusian composite rigid airships).

If you're any damn good at PhotoShop, goto:http://guthvenus.tripod.com/http://g...om/gv-town.htm
or best you start with your very own look-see at the following
official image site:http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif

The 36 look per pixel of that GIF image format starts getting
interesting at being 3X resampled, and then giving it all the best
PhotoShop or whatever else you can muster, although the original GIF
1:1 image was actually good enough for my PhotoShop configured brain
to deductively interpret upon what's most likely artificial as opposed
to what's perfectly natural. 36 looks per pixel is offering a lot of
truthworthy image data to start with, so it's a good one to stick with
rather than dealing with their individual 75 meter/pixel versions as
having combined but four looks per pixel.

Don't try to process the entire image unless you've got one heck of a
nifty PC or MAC. Try clipping out only the small portion of the total
image that's roughly a third up from the bottom and just to the right
of center, as we're talking about utilizing less than 10% or perhaps
even as little as 5% of that primary GIF image, and to process upon
just that much shouldn't traumatise your memory or performance PC or
MAC.

I'll review each of your results, that by rights should become a whole
lot better than mine. Obviously anyone can over/under force those
PhotoShop refinements, well past the point of no return, so don't do
that. My extremely old version of PhotoShop can't accomplish much
better than 8X resampling without losing ground, and besides, we don't
actually require much better than 6X for most others to see most
clearly what I'd interpreted from the original 1:1 format.

Thanks once again to 'tomcat' for also having posted this updated page
ofVenusimages.http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/th...humbnails.html

It's image No.17 from the top left being the one that so happens to
include the robust, sizable and somewhat complex community of 'GUTHVenus'.
"Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles,Venusfrom Magellan Cycle 1"http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.htm...
-BradGuth

Quiet, ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

Double-A wrote:
On May 29, 7:44 pm, ah wrote:
Double-A wrote:
On May 29, 5:37 pm, ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
At losing 20.5 w/m2, Venus is still not the least bit too hot to touch
with the Ovglove, much less of any problem for a composite rigid
airship.

Comparing Earth/Venus is not even a fair game, as to any half smart ET
village idiot, the planet Venus wins every time.

Too bad that Cambridge and the like are too mainstream snookered and
otherwise dumbfounded past the point of no return, as to know about
such things.

Too bad that ADOBE PhotoShop or the likes of digital photographic
enlargement alternatives that are even better, is still so taboo/
nondisclosure rated.

Too bad them pesky laws of physics and of whatever's the best
available science can't function off-world. I obviously didn't know
that such regular laws of physics and of whatever science were so
unusually terrestrial limited.
-
Brad Guth
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell

On Apr 4, 5:07 pm, wrote:
As long as you don't run yourself out of ice cold beer and pizza, I
don't see all that much of a problem.

As long as you've got way more spare/renewable energy at your disposal
than you could possibly know what to do with, and having that nifty
thermal suit made by Ovglove, where's the big-ass insurmountable
problem with taking that hot-foot of a toasty stroll onVenus?

CO2--CO/O2 is not hardly a technical problem, hasn't been for a good
decade or more.

Pure H2O as easily extracted from those somewhat cool nighttime acidic
clouds (above the S8 layer) is simply another mission positive win-
win.

The 65 kg/m3 worth of buoyancy as working along with the 90.5% gravity
is offering a couple of other nifty factors that'll work rather well
for your composite rigid airship (just like on behalf of those
Venusian composite rigid airships).

If you're any damn good at PhotoShop, goto:http://guthvenus.tripod.com/http://g...om/gv-town.htm
or best you start with your very own look-see at the following
official image site:http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif

The 36 look per pixel of that GIF image format starts getting
interesting at being 3X resampled, and then giving it all the best
PhotoShop or whatever else you can muster, although the original GIF
1:1 image was actually good enough for my PhotoShop configured brain
to deductively interpret upon what's most likely artificial as opposed
to what's perfectly natural. 36 looks per pixel is offering a lot of
truthworthy image data to start with, so it's a good one to stick with
rather than dealing with their individual 75 meter/pixel versions as
having combined but four looks per pixel.

Don't try to process the entire image unless you've got one heck of a
nifty PC or MAC. Try clipping out only the small portion of the total
image that's roughly a third up from the bottom and just to the right
of center, as we're talking about utilizing less than 10% or perhaps
even as little as 5% of that primary GIF image, and to process upon
just that much shouldn't traumatise your memory or performance PC or
MAC.

I'll review each of your results, that by rights should become a whole
lot better than mine. Obviously anyone can over/under force those
PhotoShop refinements, well past the point of no return, so don't do
that. My extremely old version of PhotoShop can't accomplish much
better than 8X resampling without losing ground, and besides, we don't
actually require much better than 6X for most others to see most
clearly what I'd interpreted from the original 1:1 format.

Thanks once again to 'tomcat' for also having posted this updated page
ofVenusimages.http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/th...humbnails.html

It's image No.17 from the top left being the one that so happens to
include the robust, sizable and somewhat complex community of 'GUTHVenus'.
"Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles,Venusfrom Magellan Cycle 1"http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.htm...
-BradGuth

Quiet, ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

You are an AA sock, AICMF$!

"ah" wrote in message
...
Double-A wrote:
On May 29, 7:44 pm, ah wrote:
Double-A wrote:
On May 29, 5:37 pm, ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
At losing 20.5 w/m2, Venus is still not the least bit too hot to
touch
with the Ovglove, much less of any problem for a composite rigid
airship.

Comparing Earth/Venus is not even a fair game, as to any half
smart ET
village idiot, the planet Venus wins every time.

Too bad that Cambridge and the like are too mainstream snookered
and
otherwise dumbfounded past the point of no return, as to know
about
such things.

Too bad that ADOBE PhotoShop or the likes of digital photographic
enlargement alternatives that are even better, is still so taboo/
nondisclosure rated.

Too bad them pesky laws of physics and of whatever's the best
available science can't function off-world. I obviously didn't
know
that such regular laws of physics and of whatever science were so
unusually terrestrial limited.
-
Brad Guth
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell

On Apr 4, 5:07 pm, wrote:
As long as you don't run yourself out of ice cold beer and pizza,
I
don't see all that much of a problem.

As long as you've got way more spare/renewable energy at your
disposal
than you could possibly know what to do with, and having that
nifty
thermal suit made by Ovglove, where's the big-ass insurmountable
problem with taking that hot-foot of a toasty stroll onVenus?

CO2--CO/O2 is not hardly a technical problem, hasn't been for a
good
decade or more.

Pure H2O as easily extracted from those somewhat cool nighttime
acidic
clouds (above the S8 layer) is simply another mission positive
win-
win.

The 65 kg/m3 worth of buoyancy as working along with the 90.5%
gravity
is offering a couple of other nifty factors that'll work rather
well
for your composite rigid airship (just like on behalf of those
Venusian composite rigid airships).

If you're any damn good at PhotoShop,
goto:http://guthvenus.tripod.com/http://g...om/gv-town.htm
or best you start with your very own look-see at the following
official image
site:http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif

The 36 look per pixel of that GIF image format starts getting
interesting at being 3X resampled, and then giving it all the
best
PhotoShop or whatever else you can muster, although the original
GIF
1:1 image was actually good enough for my PhotoShop configured
brain
to deductively interpret upon what's most likely artificial as
opposed
to what's perfectly natural. 36 looks per pixel is offering a
lot of
truthworthy image data to start with, so it's a good one to stick
with
rather than dealing with their individual 75 meter/pixel versions
as
having combined but four looks per pixel.

Don't try to process the entire image unless you've got one heck
of a
nifty PC or MAC. Try clipping out only the small portion of the
total
image that's roughly a third up from the bottom and just to the
right
of center, as we're talking about utilizing less than 10% or
perhaps
even as little as 5% of that primary GIF image, and to process
upon
just that much shouldn't traumatise your memory or performance PC
or
MAC.

I'll review each of your results, that by rights should become a
whole
lot better than mine. Obviously anyone can over/under force
those
PhotoShop refinements, well past the point of no return, so don't
do
that. My extremely old version of PhotoShop can't accomplish
much
better than 8X resampling without losing ground, and besides, we
don't
actually require much better than 6X for most others to see most
clearly what I'd interpreted from the original 1:1 format.

Thanks once again to 'tomcat' for also having posted this updated
page

ofVenusimages.http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/th...s/venus_thumbn
ails.html

It's image No.17 from the top left being the one that so happens
to
include the robust, sizable and somewhat complex community of
'GUTHVenus'.
"Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles,Venusfrom Magellan Cycle
1"http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.htm...
-BradGuth

Quiet, ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

You are an AA sock, AICMF$!

You need to go to AA.

On May 30, 6:09 am, "John \"C\"" wrote:
"ah" wrote in message

...



Double-A wrote:
On May 29, 7:44 pm, ah wrote:
Double-A wrote:
On May 29, 5:37 pm, ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
At losing 20.5 w/m2, Venus is still not the least bit too hot to
touch
with the Ovglove, much less of any problem for a composite rigid
airship.

Comparing Earth/Venus is not even a fair game, as to any half
smart ET
village idiot, the planet Venus wins every time.

Too bad that Cambridge and the like are too mainstream snookered
and
otherwise dumbfounded past the point of no return, as to know
about
such things.

Too bad that ADOBE PhotoShop or the likes of digital photographic
enlargement alternatives that are even better, is still so taboo/
nondisclosure rated.

Too bad them pesky laws of physics and of whatever's the best
available science can't function off-world. I obviously didn't
know
that such regular laws of physics and of whatever science were so
unusually terrestrial limited.
-
BradGuth
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell

On Apr 4, 5:07 pm, wrote:
As long as you don't run yourself out of ice cold beer and pizza,
I
don't see all that much of a problem.

As long as you've got way more spare/renewable energy at your
disposal
than you could possibly know what to do with, and having that
nifty
thermal suit made by Ovglove, where's the big-ass insurmountable
problem with taking that hot-foot of a toasty stroll onVenus?

CO2--CO/O2 is not hardly a technical problem, hasn't been for a
good
decade or more.

Pure H2O as easily extracted from those somewhat cool nighttime
acidic
clouds (above the S8 layer) is simply another mission positive
win-
win.

The 65 kg/m3 worth of buoyancy as working along with the 90.5%
gravity
is offering a couple of other nifty factors that'll work rather
well
for your composite rigid airship (just like on behalf of those
Venusian composite rigid airships).

If you're any damn good at PhotoShop,

goto:http://guthvenus.tripod.com/http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm or best you start with your very own look-see at the following
official image

site:http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif





The 36 look per pixel of that GIF image format starts getting
interesting at being 3X resampled, and then giving it all the
best
PhotoShop or whatever else you can muster, although the original
GIF
1:1 image was actually good enough for my PhotoShop configured
brain
to deductively interpret upon what's most likely artificial as
opposed
to what's perfectly natural. 36 looks per pixel is offering a
lot of
truthworthy image data to start with, so it's a good one to stick
with
rather than dealing with their individual 75 meter/pixel versions
as
having combined but four looks per pixel.

Don't try to process the entire image unless you've got one heck
of a
nifty PC or MAC. Try clipping out only the small portion of the
total
image that's roughly a third up from the bottom and just to the
right
of center, as we're talking about utilizing less than 10% or
perhaps
even as little as 5% of that primary GIF image, and to process
upon
just that much shouldn't traumatise your memory or performance PC
or
MAC.

I'll review each of your results, that by rights should become a
whole
lot better than mine. Obviously anyone can over/under force
those
PhotoShop refinements, well past the point of no return, so don't
do
that. My extremely old version of PhotoShop can't accomplish
much
better than 8X resampling without losing ground, and besides, we
don't
actually require much better than 6X for most others to see most
clearly what I'd interpreted from the original 1:1 format.

Thanks once again to 'tomcat' for also having posted this updated
page

ofVenusimages.http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/th...s/venus_thumbn
ails.html

It's image No.17 from the top left being the one that so happens
to
include the robust, sizable and somewhat complex community of
'GUTHVenus'.
"Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles,Venusfrom Magellan Cycle

1"http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.htm...

-BradGuth

Quiet, ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

You are an AA sock, AICMF$!

You need to go to AA.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How totally pathetic. You silly folks need to get a fresh grip on
your private parts, and don't ever plan on getting a free ticket to
ride from myself or from anyone else that's going to VL2 POOF City,
and then onto Venus.

Unlike yourself, I don't happen to like and otherwise continually suck
up to those bad guys that perpetrated our mutuallly spendy and
therefore lethal cold-war(s).

Unlike yourself, I tend to stick with using the regular laws of
physics, and otherwise accepting the best available science that's
replicated by those not directly associated with your status quo.

I also haven't gone out of my way in order to topic/author stalk, bash
or otherwise to modify the original topic intent or of its
crosspostings unless there's no other viable option, much less have I
changed a topic's name or having hijacked it into those Usenet
disinformation cesspools of yours.

Your being yet another fence jumping atheist (as are all of Usenet's
MI/NSA~NASA spooks, moles and rusemasters) doesn't hardly count for
all that much, other than your being fully Third Reich and/or Skull
and Bones boot-camp certified, like the good little stealth Zionist
and/or brown-nosed minions that you folks actually are.

How about the butts you folks continually kick or having allowed of
others to kick, such as into "Killfile Hell" or the likes of your
having put Christ on a stick, instead need to be of those dark side
butts that seem as though more Old Testament thumping than otherwise.
-
Brad Guth
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell

On May 30, 3:08 am, ah wrote:
Double-A wrote:
On May 29, 7:44 pm, ah wrote:
Double-A wrote:
On May 29, 5:37 pm, ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
At losing 20.5 w/m2, Venus is still not the least bit too hot to touch
with the Ovglove, much less of any problem for a composite rigid
airship.

Comparing Earth/Venus is not even a fair game, as to any half smart ET
village idiot, the planet Venus wins every time.

Too bad that Cambridge and the like are too mainstream snookered and
otherwise dumbfounded past the point of no return, as to know about
such things.

Too bad that ADOBE PhotoShop or the likes of digital photographic
enlargement alternatives that are even better, is still so taboo/
nondisclosure rated.

Too bad them pesky laws of physics and of whatever's the best
available science can't function off-world. I obviously didn't know
that such regular laws of physics and of whatever science were so
unusually terrestrial limited.
-
Brad Guth
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell

On Apr 4, 5:07 pm, wrote:
As long as you don't run yourself out of ice cold beer and pizza, I
don't see all that much of a problem.

As long as you've got way more spare/renewable energy at your disposal
than you could possibly know what to do with, and having that nifty
thermal suit made by Ovglove, where's the big-ass insurmountable
problem with taking that hot-foot of a toasty stroll onVenus?

CO2--CO/O2 is not hardly a technical problem, hasn't been for a good
decade or more.

Pure H2O as easily extracted from those somewhat cool nighttime acidic
clouds (above the S8 layer) is simply another mission positive win-
win.

The 65 kg/m3 worth of buoyancy as working along with the 90.5% gravity
is offering a couple of other nifty factors that'll work rather well
for your composite rigid airship (just like on behalf of those
Venusian composite rigid airships).

If you're any damn good at PhotoShop, goto:http://guthvenus.tripod.com/http://g...om/gv-town.htm
or best you start with your very own look-see at the following
official image site:http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif

The 36 look per pixel of that GIF image format starts getting
interesting at being 3X resampled, and then giving it all the best
PhotoShop or whatever else you can muster, although the original GIF
1:1 image was actually good enough for my PhotoShop configured brain
to deductively interpret upon what's most likely artificial as opposed
to what's perfectly natural. 36 looks per pixel is offering a lot of
truthworthy image data to start with, so it's a good one to stick with
rather than dealing with their individual 75 meter/pixel versions as
having combined but four looks per pixel.

Don't try to process the entire image unless you've got one heck of a
nifty PC or MAC. Try clipping out only the small portion of the total
image that's roughly a third up from the bottom and just to the right
of center, as we're talking about utilizing less than 10% or perhaps
even as little as 5% of that primary GIF image, and to process upon
just that much shouldn't traumatise your memory or performance PC or
MAC.

I'll review each of your results, that by rights should become a whole
lot better than mine. Obviously anyone can over/under force those
PhotoShop refinements, well past the point of no return, so don't do
that. My extremely old version of PhotoShop can't accomplish much
better than 8X resampling without losing ground, and besides, we don't
actually require much better than 6X for most others to see most
clearly what I'd interpreted from the original 1:1 format.

Thanks once again to 'tomcat' for also having posted this updated page
ofVenusimages.http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/th...humbnails.html

It's image No.17 from the top left being the one that so happens to
include the robust, sizable and somewhat complex community of 'GUTHVenus'.
"Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles,Venusfrom Magellan Cycle 1"http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.htm...
-BradGuth

Quiet, ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

You are an AA sock, AICMF$!


Who you calling sock, sock?

Double-A wrote:
On May 30, 3:08 am, ah wrote:
Double-A wrote:
On May 29, 7:44 pm, ah wrote:
Double-A wrote:
On May 29, 5:37 pm, ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
At losing 20.5 w/m2, Venus is still not the least bit too hot to touch
with the Ovglove, much less of any problem for a composite rigid
airship.

Comparing Earth/Venus is not even a fair game, as to any half smart ET
village idiot, the planet Venus wins every time.

Too bad that Cambridge and the like are too mainstream snookered and
otherwise dumbfounded past the point of no return, as to know about
such things.

Too bad that ADOBE PhotoShop or the likes of digital photographic
enlargement alternatives that are even better, is still so taboo/
nondisclosure rated.

Too bad them pesky laws of physics and of whatever's the best
available science can't function off-world. I obviously didn't know
that such regular laws of physics and of whatever science were so
unusually terrestrial limited.
-
Brad Guth
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell

On Apr 4, 5:07 pm, wrote:
As long as you don't run yourself out of ice cold beer and pizza, I
don't see all that much of a problem.

As long as you've got way more spare/renewable energy at your disposal
than you could possibly know what to do with, and having that nifty
thermal suit made by Ovglove, where's the big-ass insurmountable
problem with taking that hot-foot of a toasty stroll onVenus?

CO2--CO/O2 is not hardly a technical problem, hasn't been for a good
decade or more.

Pure H2O as easily extracted from those somewhat cool nighttime acidic
clouds (above the S8 layer) is simply another mission positive win-
win.

The 65 kg/m3 worth of buoyancy as working along with the 90.5% gravity
is offering a couple of other nifty factors that'll work rather well
for your composite rigid airship (just like on behalf of those
Venusian composite rigid airships).

If you're any damn good at PhotoShop, goto:http://guthvenus.tripod.com/http://g...om/gv-town.htm
or best you start with your very own look-see at the following
official image site:http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif

The 36 look per pixel of that GIF image format starts getting
interesting at being 3X resampled, and then giving it all the best
PhotoShop or whatever else you can muster, although the original GIF
1:1 image was actually good enough for my PhotoShop configured brain
to deductively interpret upon what's most likely artificial as opposed
to what's perfectly natural. 36 looks per pixel is offering a lot of
truthworthy image data to start with, so it's a good one to stick with
rather than dealing with their individual 75 meter/pixel versions as
having combined but four looks per pixel.

Don't try to process the entire image unless you've got one heck of a
nifty PC or MAC. Try clipping out only the small portion of the total
image that's roughly a third up from the bottom and just to the right
of center, as we're talking about utilizing less than 10% or perhaps
even as little as 5% of that primary GIF image, and to process upon
just that much shouldn't traumatise your memory or performance PC or
MAC.

I'll review each of your results, that by rights should become a whole
lot better than mine. Obviously anyone can over/under force those
PhotoShop refinements, well past the point of no return, so don't do
that. My extremely old version of PhotoShop can't accomplish much
better than 8X resampling without losing ground, and besides, we don't
actually require much better than 6X for most others to see most
clearly what I'd interpreted from the original 1:1 format.

Thanks once again to 'tomcat' for also having posted this updated page
ofVenusimages.http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/th...humbnails.html

It's image No.17 from the top left being the one that so happens to
include the robust, sizable and somewhat complex community of 'GUTHVenus'.
"Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles,Venusfrom Magellan Cycle 1"http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.htm...
-BradGuth

Quiet, ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

You are an AA sock, AICMF$!


Who you calling sock, sock?

You, you . . . you sock!

On May 30, 5:29 pm, ah wrote:
Double-A wrote:
On May 30, 3:08 am, ah wrote:
Double-A wrote:
On May 29, 7:44 pm, ah wrote:
Double-A wrote:
On May 29, 5:37 pm, ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
At losing 20.5 w/m2, Venus is still not the least bit too hot to touch
with the Ovglove, much less of any problem for a composite rigid
airship.

Comparing Earth/Venus is not even a fair game, as to any half smart ET
village idiot, the planet Venus wins every time.

Too bad that Cambridge and the like are too mainstream snookered and
otherwise dumbfounded past the point of no return, as to know about
such things.

Too bad that ADOBE PhotoShop or the likes of digital photographic
enlargement alternatives that are even better, is still so taboo/
nondisclosure rated.

Too bad them pesky laws of physics and of whatever's the best
available science can't function off-world. I obviously didn't know
that such regular laws of physics and of whatever science were so
unusually terrestrial limited.
-
Brad Guth
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell

On Apr 4, 5:07 pm, wrote:
As long as you don't run yourself out of ice cold beer and pizza, I
don't see all that much of a problem.

As long as you've got way more spare/renewable energy at your disposal
than you could possibly know what to do with, and having that nifty
thermal suit made by Ovglove, where's the big-ass insurmountable
problem with taking that hot-foot of a toasty stroll onVenus?

CO2--CO/O2 is not hardly a technical problem, hasn't been for a good
decade or more.

Pure H2O as easily extracted from those somewhat cool nighttime acidic
clouds (above the S8 layer) is simply another mission positive win-
win.

The 65 kg/m3 worth of buoyancy as working along with the 90.5% gravity
is offering a couple of other nifty factors that'll work rather well
for your composite rigid airship (just like on behalf of those
Venusian composite rigid airships).

If you're any damn good at PhotoShop, goto:http://guthvenus.tripod.com/http://g...om/gv-town.htm
or best you start with your very own look-see at the following
official image site:http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif

The 36 look per pixel of that GIF image format starts getting
interesting at being 3X resampled, and then giving it all the best
PhotoShop or whatever else you can muster, although the original GIF
1:1 image was actually good enough for my PhotoShop configured brain
to deductively interpret upon what's most likely artificial as opposed
to what's perfectly natural. 36 looks per pixel is offering a lot of
truthworthy image data to start with, so it's a good one to stick with
rather than dealing with their individual 75 meter/pixel versions as
having combined but four looks per pixel.

Don't try to process the entire image unless you've got one heck of a
nifty PC or MAC. Try clipping out only the small portion of the total
image that's roughly a third up from the bottom and just to the right
of center, as we're talking about utilizing less than 10% or perhaps
even as little as 5% of that primary GIF image, and to process upon
just that much shouldn't traumatise your memory or performance PC or
MAC.

I'll review each of your results, that by rights should become a whole
lot better than mine. Obviously anyone can over/under force those
PhotoShop refinements, well past the point of no return, so don't do
that. My extremely old version of PhotoShop can't accomplish much
better than 8X resampling without losing ground, and besides, we don't
actually require much better than 6X for most others to see most
clearly what I'd interpreted from the original 1:1 format.

Thanks once again to 'tomcat' for also having posted this updated page
ofVenusimages.http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/th...humbnails.html

It's image No.17 from the top left being the one that so happens to
include the robust, sizable and somewhat complex community of 'GUTHVenus'.
"Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles,Venusfrom Magellan Cycle 1"http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.htm...
-BradGuth

Quiet, ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

You are an AA sock, AICMF$!

Who you calling sock, sock?

You, you . . . you sock!

Sock it to me!

Double-A wrote:
On May 30, 5:29 pm, ah wrote:
Double-A wrote:
On May 30, 3:08 am, ah wrote:
Double-A wrote:
On May 29, 7:44 pm, ah wrote:
Double-A wrote:
On May 29, 5:37 pm, ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
At losing 20.5 w/m2, Venus is still not the least bit too hot to touch
with the Ovglove, much less of any problem for a composite rigid
airship.

Comparing Earth/Venus is not even a fair game, as to any half smart ET
village idiot, the planet Venus wins every time.

Too bad that Cambridge and the like are too mainstream snookered and
otherwise dumbfounded past the point of no return, as to know about
such things.

Too bad that ADOBE PhotoShop or the likes of digital photographic
enlargement alternatives that are even better, is still so taboo/
nondisclosure rated.

Too bad them pesky laws of physics and of whatever's the best
available science can't function off-world. I obviously didn't know
that such regular laws of physics and of whatever science were so
unusually terrestrial limited.
-
Brad Guth
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell

On Apr 4, 5:07 pm, wrote:
As long as you don't run yourself out of ice cold beer and pizza, I
don't see all that much of a problem.

As long as you've got way more spare/renewable energy at your disposal
than you could possibly know what to do with, and having that nifty
thermal suit made by Ovglove, where's the big-ass insurmountable
problem with taking that hot-foot of a toasty stroll onVenus?

CO2--CO/O2 is not hardly a technical problem, hasn't been for a good
decade or more.

Pure H2O as easily extracted from those somewhat cool nighttime acidic
clouds (above the S8 layer) is simply another mission positive win-
win.

The 65 kg/m3 worth of buoyancy as working along with the 90.5% gravity
is offering a couple of other nifty factors that'll work rather well
for your composite rigid airship (just like on behalf of those
Venusian composite rigid airships).

If you're any damn good at PhotoShop, goto:http://guthvenus.tripod.com/http://g...om/gv-town.htm
or best you start with your very own look-see at the following
official image site:http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif

The 36 look per pixel of that GIF image format starts getting
interesting at being 3X resampled, and then giving it all the best
PhotoShop or whatever else you can muster, although the original GIF
1:1 image was actually good enough for my PhotoShop configured brain
to deductively interpret upon what's most likely artificial as opposed
to what's perfectly natural. 36 looks per pixel is offering a lot of
truthworthy image data to start with, so it's a good one to stick with
rather than dealing with their individual 75 meter/pixel versions as
having combined but four looks per pixel.

Don't try to process the entire image unless you've got one heck of a
nifty PC or MAC. Try clipping out only the small portion of the total
image that's roughly a third up from the bottom and just to the right
of center, as we're talking about utilizing less than 10% or perhaps
even as little as 5% of that primary GIF image, and to process upon
just that much shouldn't traumatise your memory or performance PC or
MAC.

I'll review each of your results, that by rights should become a whole
lot better than mine. Obviously anyone can over/under force those
PhotoShop refinements, well past the point of no return, so don't do
that. My extremely old version of PhotoShop can't accomplish much
better than 8X resampling without losing ground, and besides, we don't
actually require much better than 6X for most others to see most
clearly what I'd interpreted from the original 1:1 format.

Thanks once again to 'tomcat' for also having posted this updated page
ofVenusimages.http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/th...humbnails.html

It's image No.17 from the top left being the one that so happens to
include the robust, sizable and somewhat complex community of 'GUTHVenus'.
"Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles,Venusfrom Magellan Cycle 1"http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.htm...
-BradGuth

Quiet, ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

You are an AA sock, AICMF$!

Who you calling sock, sock?

You, you . . . you sock!

Sock it to me!

You just don't appreciate the gravity of the situation.