|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Venus for dummies (1.0) / Brad Guth (GuthVenus)
How can the planet Venus be so insurmountable?
If others can manage to exploit Venus, then why can't those of us? Be my guest and apply your very own photographic enlargement software, as to viewing this one small but rather interesting mountainous area of Venus, using your independent deductive expertise as to enlarge or magnify this extensively mountainous terrain of Venus that I’ve focused upon, really shouldn’t be asking too much. Most of modern PhotoZoom and numerous other photographic software variations tend to accomplish this enlargement process automatically (including iPhone and Safari image zooming), although some extra applied filtering and thereby image enhancing for dynamic range compensations (aka contrast) can further improve upon the end result (no direct pixel modifications should ever be necessary, because it’s all a derivative from the original Magellan radar imaging of 36 confirming radar scans/pixel, that can always be 100% verified). “GuthVenus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in question: https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...18595926178146 http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...8634/BradGuth# http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG, Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”, GuthVenus On Apr 24, 2:28*pm, Brad Guth wrote: Apparently, science nerds are supposed to be extremely narrow mindset and typically failsafe as harmless cranks that never act out or actually do anything aggressive, and because any context of off-world geology remains yet another faith-based taboo/nondisclosure topic policy of Usenet, whereas anything getting posted as open context pertaining to the ongoing research and discovery of any weird geology or the odd sorts of physics necessary for creating such highly unusual geodynamics of such symmetrical and even somewhat community infrastructure looking items (that by rights should not exist), is simply of what’s not being allowed to go public or much less into any of our K-12 indoctrinated mindsets. *Oddly, we can’t even seem to openly discuss exploiting the likely inverse density innards of our moon. Surely there must be at least one geophysics qualified expertise that’s willing to contribute his/her feedback, on behalf of interpreting whatever these highly unusual geometrical items as having been identified on the extremely hot surface of Venus could represent, and/or at least given us some terrestrial examples that are clearly of perfectly natural formations for the rest of us to compare, in order to disqualify these rather numerous odd items as representing anything but perfectly natural formations. Sadly I’ve been asking this of our NASA, as well as multiple other public funded agencies and always giving an open channel to anyone else willing to give this one image of GuthVenus their best shot in the dark, or even their best geology swag. *Apparently they’ve all needed better than 12 years in order to decide what to do next. Pay no special attention to those hiding behind curtains (cloaked as always politically and faith-based correct), because it's their mostly public-funded and/or faith-based job to topic/author stalk and to otherwise FUD everything to death. *Hitler had the exact same “Paperclip” team of ruse-masters and FUD-masters, as professional media damage-control clowns working and/or manipulating the locals into a mainstream status-quo mindset of always following order, which unfortunately far too many have bought into instead of taking any logically deductive formulated stance against their totally bat**** crazy peers. Of course this mainstream status-quo policy of obfuscation and denial is what brought us a mutually perpetrated cold-war era and the sort of negative Karma likes of 911 (make that a whole lot of positive Karma if you are an oligarch of our military industrial complex), each of which wasted decades and costing us trillions of our hard earned dollars, as well as having systematically squandered all sorts of talent, expertise and resources that we'll never get back, and which also forced other nations to follow suit. Venus is pretty much as hot and nasty as we’ve all been indoctrinated about. *However, this not necessarily the case of each and every location, such as mountainous and polar areas can be considerably cooler though still extremely hot by the sorts of human Goldilocks standards that we’re accustomed to. *However, with applied physics and reasonable technology, the surface of Venus can be dealt with, at least robotically, and otherwise via composite rigid airships it can be further exploited while easily protecting the airship crew. *Of course you have to think really big and perhaps even small in order to fully appreciate the potential of what exploiting such a nearby planet has to offer, because it’s the in-between stuff that’s not easily accomplished if you can only think of terrestrial limited methods that we get to deal with on Earth. Our physically dark and naked moon is just another metallicity treasure trove of valuable resources (including much clean energy), that’s just sitting out there and causing us mostly grief and otherwise contributing very little terrestrial benefit, unless added IR, X-rays and gamma plus loads of tidal surging and increased seismic trauma is desirable. Venus on the other hand is a lot more stable, and it isn’t traumatized by any moon, as well as offering terrific buoyancy for airships, nearly ideal protection from meteors and even most asteroids can’t hardly touch that surface unless they’re mostly of iron and other heavy metals. *You also can’t get any skin cancer from too much UV, and local radiation issues have to be nearly zilch unless you’re directly sitting on a pile of uranium and thorium. *The list of positive attributes simply outnumbers the bad stuff by a good 10:1, although if stuck with a naysay closed mindset, there’s no amount of positive/constructive benefits that’ll ever budge or pry such closed mindsets open. Surely there must be at least one geophysics qualified expertise that’s willing to contribute his/her feedback on what these highly unusual geometrical items could represent, and/or at least given some terrestrial examples that are clearly of perfectly natural formations, for the rest of us village idiots as outsiders to compare. Oddly the supposed image interpreting expertise of those public funded is sadly nonexistent, so perhaps we should not trust anything we’re being told by the world of mainstream experts about any other planet or moon. *They can’t even seem to independently discuss odd formations on our moon, nor the various gasses given off by our monochromatic (aka colorless) moon that our NASA/Apollo era supposedly got a firsthand look-see at. If we have to accept that Kodak film is every bit as good as our conditional physics via our cold-war NASA/Apollo era claims, and we otherwise have to accept each and every officially published word about our physically dark and naked moon being only as what they have to say it is, then perhaps we might as well accept that Venus is just another Muslim ruse, and that absolutely nothing of any importance or value is ever going to be represented by Venus regardless of whatever 36 confirming radar scanned images has to offer. *In other words, not so much as any radar obtained pixel of Venus can be trusted as to represent any geology formations of surface rock, mountains, canyons or that of anything else, but otherwise Kodak film can always be trusted regardless of the local lighting, extreme contract issues, lack of dynamic range and those always pesky IR to gamma radiation issues. What isn’t well understood about Venus is perhaps more interesting than what little we do know, even if GuthVenus is looking every bit as unnatural as it seems. *It’s a case of using our deductive reasoning subjectivity, as for filling in the blanks and connecting the dots with the best available science in order to interpret what surface formations have to offer. *Of course the mainstream status-quo of diehard naysayers will gladly obfuscate their butts off before allowing an outsider to get an inch or any gram of credit for uncovering anything, because that’s their job. *“Ever-Changing Venus Superstorm Sparks Interest” *http://news.yahoo.com/ever-changing-...arks-interest-.... *“Venus And Her Layers Of Carbon Dioxide” *http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/04/0...ers-of-carbon-.... *“The takeaway on all of this….. models and the theories behind them are very useful when postulating new thoughts. *But, only if they include the realities science has already given us. *And lastly, in all science, regardless of the school of thought, observation is king. *It always has been, it always will be. *You can model, theorize and postulate until the cows come home but none of that matters when observation tells you otherwise.” There’s actually quite a bit of *old but perfectly reliable science interpretation within that blog of “Suyts Space”, and you certainly do not have to agree with all of it. *Without more robotic obtained science at specific altitudes and surface locations, it’s still hard to interpret or even swag as to what that planet has to offer. My ongoing observationology as to interpreting Venus (aka GuthVenus) is what seems to bug the living hell out of others, because they can’t stand whenever an outsider has anything of value to offer and share, and besides it’s always their redneck and FUD-master responsibility as to topic/author stalk and trash us outsiders at every opportunity. Proof is, in the 12+ years that I’ve been around, it seems they can’t point to one individual they’ve ever helped to disclose or promote anything of interest or value, although I’m having no problems whatsoever with easily pointing out the 100% of outsiders as having been topic/author stalked and summarily trashed at each and every opportunity, especially on behalf of any social/political issues these insiders as FUD-masters do not want to allow any free speech benefits to ever go unmoderated. Keep asking yourself; *why is any topic or reply on behalf of exploiting our moon, or much less the extremely nearby(100 LD) planet Venus, remains always such a royal mainstream taboo/nondisclosure issue? Most K-12s of this and even a few previous generations don’t have a clue about the physics or science of photographics, much less an understanding of radar imaging or even that of conventional optical lenses, filters, lighting or dynamic range issues or even color saturations, but none the less they’ll believe pretty much anything their peers have to say about what any given photograph has to offer. Future K-12s will most certainly become totally snookered and dumbfounded past the point of no return, as to independently interpreting what any digital image has to offer, outside of having to accept whatever their peers have to say. *In other words, we’ll have future generations of brainless zombies and otherwise devout brown- nosed minions as doing either exactly as told or face being classified as worthless humans, similar to those rounded up and treated worse than cattle by the SS Nazis (upper caste oligarchs) that had their puppet warlord to blame everything on. Any republic as having become incapable of independently thinking and reacting as based upon deductive reasoning, deserves a warlord dictator and/or the consequences of not pleasing the upper caste of oligarchs that are always in charge regardless of whomever they elect or appoint. Just for the sporting hell of it all, be my guest and apply your very own photographic enlargement software, as to viewing this one small but rather interesting mountainous area of Venus, using your independent deductive expertise as to enlarge or magnify this extensively mountainous terrain of Venus that I’ve focused upon, really shouldn’t be asking too much. *Most of modern PhotoZoom and numerous other photographic software variations tend to accomplish this enlargement process automatically (including iPhone and Safari image zooming), although some extra applied filtering and thereby image enhancing for dynamic range compensations (aka contrast) can further improve upon the end result (no direct pixel modifications should ever be necessary, because it’s all a derivative from the original Magellan radar imaging of 36 confirming radar scans/pixel, that can always be 100% verified). “GuthVenus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in question: *https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...Guth#slideshow.... *http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif *https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...8634/BradGuth# *http://translate.google.com/# *Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG, Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”, GuthVenus |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Venus for dummies (1.0) / Brad Guth (GuthVenus) | Brad Guth[_3_] | Policy | 0 | May 3rd 13 02:41 PM |
Venus for dummies (1.0) / Brad Guth (GuthVenus) | Brad Guth[_3_] | History | 0 | March 7th 13 04:41 PM |