Headline News from Houston - Meteor misses Space Station

Sorry about that. I have so many complex pages with those Magellan
pictures that it's hard to eliminate which ones are worse off than the
next. Their all offering fairly nasty words on behalf of returning the
favor. Perhaps I should revise that as though our NASA and of those
continually sucking up to them actually give a flying hocky puck.

For starters, I've only slightly improved this page:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm

Suppose I could simply post a few specific image links, That way folks
can do their own thing.

The NASA/Magellan original (actually there are higher resolutions
available)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif

I believe this offers a 1:1 GIF clip that'll process much easier
because of the relatively slight file size. Second one is just a JPIG
format of the same 1:1 clip.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/images/mgn_c115s095_1a.gif
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/images/mgn_c115s095_1A.jpg

This was one of my better efforts, although I'm always improving within
the extremely limited PhotoShop like software that sucks. I'm sure that
your photo software is so much better, and that you know far more than
most of us as to how to get the most pixel bang without excessively
distorting away from the raw 1:1 original:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/images/guth-venus-180-A.jpg

A wee bit over processed, but this one clearly points out the 'Venus
Bridge'
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/images/venus-bridge.jpg
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-bridge.htm

BTW; most folks have had better photo software than I've utilized
(NIMA.MIL for example, and there's better yet), though at least the raw
original of 225 meters/pixel and of 12 radar looks per pixel is always
right there as our starting and/or photo reset point of reference.

I may even get around to having some better wording to go with some of
these images. However, observationology is rather highly interpretive,
and most certainly subjective science. Thus the interpretation may
remain in the eye of the beholder, of which this usually does little
good if the beholder of that eye is thoroughly snookered into seeing
nothing but those hot rocks and WMD under every one of them. For some
reason folks that remain as absolutely status quo about all of this
can't even take an honest look-see notice of the Fluid Arch that's most
likely as natural of what's to being seen, as are those hot rocks.

I'll look forward to seeing your photo processing results.

I'm still behind on my LSE-CM/ISS drawings, although I do have a few
interesting tidbits here and there to share.
Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS