Guth Venus is way more alive than Usenet

Brad Guth wrote:
"Bill K" wrote in message
oups.com

The gentleman is suffering from a martyr complex. That is one of the
identifying characteristics of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).
Pyschiatrists dread treating persons with NPD since they have so little
chance of recovery. Pathological violence is all too often the end
result. Not toward themselves, of course, as they are narcissists, but
toward those they perceive as inferior yet confound their
self-perception of grandiosity. Or, he may just be a college freshman
with an inflated ego. Oh well, he is very amusing.

"Martin Leese" is hardly amusing, more like totally pathetic and rather
mainstream status quo at all cost.

Folks like "Martin Leese" is exactly why we have to keep going to war,
just so their bigotry and arrogance can remain as dumfounded and
otherwise as greedy as ever.

Venus and of the intelligent other life that's existing/coecisting is
obviously not his cup of tea, any more so than the truth about 911, TWA
flight 800 or the USS LIBERTY fiasco that we're still paying for with
collateral damage and way too many lives as well as in hard earned
dollars, and we're running ourselves out of affordable resources of
energy as we continue to pollute mother Earth for all it's worth.
-
Brad Guth




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

I was referring to you, dufus, not Mr. Leese. You are quite amusing.
--
Bill

"Roy G" wrote in message


Two Word response.

The first begins with F and the second ends with F.

Why is it that folks like yourself can't seen to manage to
constructively contribute to a given topic?

What are you folks so afraid of?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 01:37:55 +0000, Brad Guth wrote:


Why is it that folks like yourself can't seen to manage to
constructively contribute to a given topic?

What are you folks so afraid of?
-
Brad Guth
It is YOU that doesn't understand - this is completely off topic.
Followups reset.
--
Neil
Delete l to reply

"Neil Ellwood" wrote in message
news
It is YOU that doesn't understand - this is completely off topic.
Followups reset.

Say what?

Is there something about the regular laws of physics and of the well
proven and replicated science of radar imaging and of honest
observationology that's over your head?
-
Brad Guth



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Brad Guth wrote:
"Neil Ellwood" wrote in message
news
It is YOU that doesn't understand - this is completely off topic.
Followups reset.

Say what?

Is there something about the regular laws of physics and of the well
proven and replicated science of radar imaging and of honest
observationology that's over your head?

No, "Brad". He's politely asking you to **** off. Me too.
f-u set.

--
John McWilliams


"Andre, a simple peasant, had only one thing on his mind as he crept
along the East wall: 'Andre creep ... Andre creep ... Andre creep'."

Venus by MAGELLAN: Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles / Brad Guth / Guth
Venus

From my limited Usenet experience that hasn't been exactly all that
resourceful, nor having been all that end-user friendly unless you
happen to own a full-body flak suit, you'd certainly be hard pressed to
learn all that much of anything by way of the usual anti-think-tank of
what this naysay Usenet of NASA's infomercial-science represents, and/or
by way of NASA's own wag-thy-dog standards of having excluded whatever
evidence suits their agenda. But in spite of their obvious ESA/(Venus
Express) and "Guth Venus" banishments, there's all sorts of new and
improved science that's arriving about Venus, all of which further
supports the geothermal nature of our extremely nearby and rather toasty
Venus as being one seriously geophysically active and unavoidably hot
place for the likes of us wussy and somewhat dumbfounded humans to live
in the buff. However, the facts of that thick and terribly buoyant soup
of an atmosphere as being so extra toasty by day, and otherwise cooling
itself off rather nicely by night (extracting roughly 15% more thermal
energy than solar contributed) does not significantly alter the
geothermally heated surface situation by day or night, as being from
where the vast bulk of that environmental CO2 and thermal energy has
been derived from.

For all that it's worth, Venus is still within the newish planetology
phase of having been radiating it's core energy and otherwise
continually outgassing and thereby unavoidably contributing to it's
robust atmospheric mass, as well as towards the heating of that Venusian
atmosphere, as having been primarily roasting or rather geothermally
baking itself from the bottom up, along with those highly reflective
clouds receiving the solar influx of 2650 joules/m2 by day, thereby
adding further insult to injury.

ESA's thermal imaging and other planetology science results from their
Venus Express, with lots more to come.
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/obj...objectid=39432

For starters, and besides whatever's having been interpreted from
various high quality and very truth worthy radar obtained images, we've
also had some fairly old but good science as to appreciating the surface
geothermal anomaly differentials, of what's clearly representing an
active environment as having 225~240 K, as well as contributing as to
whatever a good amount of surface elevation could factor without
involving anything that's specifically active lava, bringing that
overall thermal differential to a rather nifty 320 K.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kief...oebe_fig2b.gif
By any known standards of physics, considering the nearly 10% density of
water that the surface atmosphere of mostly CO2 represents, whereas such
available thermal differentials as well as for the added 4+bar/km of
pressure differential is not exactly representing a wussy amount of
easily available energy.

Once the Venus EXPRESS PFS instrument is rebooted/activated and
contributing in depth of better thermal imaging resolution that should
penetrate down to the surface, whereas this is when we'll get another
good batch of updated science as pertaining towards the mapping of all
those multiple hot spots or active volcanic zones of geothermal lava
and/or of various surface mud flows, plus those high pressure gas vents
that are most likely contributing (according to John Ackerman's
"Alternative View of Venus") their fair share of S8(monoclinic sulfur),
and possibly the PFS will be of sufficient resolution as to re-identify
the active area associated with the 'Fluid Arch'.

All that I'm saying is that Venus is simply not offering the exact same
surface temperature upon each and every square meter of that newish
(much less old than Earth) planetary environment, and there's certainly
absolute loads of what's local and of essentially unlimited/renewable
energy that's available to work with. There's also absolutely nothing
technical that's entirely insurmountable on behalf of other intelligent
life having existed/coexisted, whereas there's only the ongoing mindset
of bigotry, greed and arrogance of Usenet naysayism that's continually
hard at work of their status quo wagging-thy-dogs to death, of otherwise
imposing as much collateral damage and carnage upon the innocent without
ever a stitch of remorse to boot is unfortunately pretty much what we
should expect.

The image of what easily interprets as a Venusian township or complex
community of those extremely large and I think impressive looking
structures, reservoirs and of what I interpret as having a rigid airship
and of that associated bridge as having created their perfectly rational
configuration of a worthy Venusian infrastructure, along with having
their nearby township's local tarmac that's also offering a fairly
complex item of good size, isn't a joke. But since most Usenet folks
and official damage-control rusemasters tend to refuse to believe my
image processing and otherwise impose banishment upon all subsequent
interpretations, or for that matter of tormenting whatever anyone else
happens to perceive as being potentially artificial about Venus gets
their official Usenet topic/author stalking, bashing and/or banishment
along with as much of their mainstream status quo flak as this pathetic
Usenet from naysay hell can muster (yet they'll believe each and every
NASA/Apollo image w/o question and/or without a stitch of physics or any
other hard-science in support thereof) is why I'm starting this topic
off by posting the raw NASA/Magellan image links, which so happens to
contain the bulk of those terrific items of interest, that which I've
spoken of and having requested honest contributions from all others,
that's hopefully going to become worthy of my having shared this
discovery for the past seven years.

Here's the original of the Magellan radar imaging composite, of
representing roughly 225 meter and 36 image confirming looks/pixel:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif

If this radar digital image was simply too complex for your expertise,
or simply too much for your computer to manage, I'll gladly tell you how
to easily minimize the task of processing as little as 5% of the total
frame, or at most 10% should more include the entire area of interest
that can then be rather quickly processed into as large of an image file
as your computer can manage to cope with, although there's no good
reason to push this small portion of not more than 10% into a multi
megabyte format, that is unless it's your intentions of proving how
massive and/or distorted your version of an image can be accomplished.
MAGELLAN: Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles
low res:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/ht...115s095_1.html

LIFE identified on Venus

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...78f97e66897298
At least "Duncan Young" was at the time being honestly constructive,
though without his supposed expertise ever once having contributed a
supportive radar image on behalf of his unsubstantiated argument that
all is perfectly natural. Although I'd been cut off from GOOGLE Usenet
at the time, so that further topic contributions were not being
accepted, and by the time I'd noticed it seemed too late. The others as
having contributed to this one and of so many other similar topics were
clearly of NASA's damage-control or MIB rusemasters, and thereby totally
pointless for accomplishing anything the least bit constructive.
Clearly these folks have a great many of their infomercial butts to
cover, and at public expense they're really good at it.

My argument has always been that 36 looks/pixel beats 4 looks/pixel
whenever it comes down to being of the most truth worthy of such radar
pixels. Unfortunately, 36 looks/pixel brings the working image
resolution down to 225 m/pixel instead of the niftier 75 m/pixel, but
that's only good news on behalf of honest observationology if what we're
looking for is of a reasonably large configuration or stature to start
off with, and since we still have the surrounding terrain that is always
there to behold as our basis of reference, reinforcing as to what's
otherwise looking perfectly natural about Venus as opposed to what
looking as most likely artificial.

If I'm still not asking too much, please take another unbiased/(open
mindset) 1:1 look-see, and tell me whatever it is that you honestly
think, and please do bother share as to the observationology and/or
planetology basis of whatever's encharge of your best SWAG or
investigative mindset. If you can't manage or otherwise refuse to
accomplish the digital PhotoShop enlargements, in which case I'll
provide my best efforts as to sharing the step by step of whatever
photographic digital enlargement/(zoom-in) process has to offer, and
then I'll share the enlargement results of what I've managed to
accomplish, which unfortunately isn't going to be 10% as good as what
our nondisclosure NIMA team has had to offer, and my efforts shouldn't
even be nearly as good as whatever yourself and your newer software of
whatever PhotoShop can deliver.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Venus is certainly a little different and perhaps a whole lot more rare
on behalf of life than Earth (at least I've never once insisted that
it's entirely or much less extensively populated with it's own kind),
such as in many ways it's a whole lot better off considering it has
unlimited and 100% renewable energy to burn (sort of speak), whereas it
also hasn't a highly reactive anticathode of a nasty moon to deal with,
and there's certainly not much chance of their having an ice-age because
of not having that moon, and it has also been next to forever since
they've had their last nasty storm, or much less having to survive
horrific impacts or having any of those pesky floods to deal with.

Earth is a very rare planet (I say, so what's the difference; being rare
is a darn good thing)

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...63 05f2699d53

Panspermia via icy proto-moon seems perfectly doable for having
biologically terraformed planets other than Earth (much like planting
remote crops), as well as the random happenstance via local chemical
interactions and/or the goodwill of ET intelligent designers adding to
the soup of complex life as they trek there way through town.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s327749.htm
"Sitting here, waiting for someone to 'phone' us up is a waste of time."

"The presence of land on our planet is a direct result of an extremely
rare kind of collision with asteroids during its formation, Dr Hoffman
says. This collision led to the formation of our unique type of moon,
which is made of materially formerly part of the primitive Earth's outer
crust."

I totally agree with "Dr Hoffman", whereas it seems as though a 4000 km
icy proto-moon should rather easily qualify as an effective terraforming
impactor, especially if it's offering somewhat of a salty ice along with
having loads of well protected DNA sequestered within.

Jordan;
1) Hoffman is quite right that many Terrestrial planets may be much
wetter than the Earth. (What he does not mention is that many may
also be much drier: note that Mars, the most Earthlike planet in _
our_ Solar System, is by Earth standards a barren desert).
However ...

2) Hoffman is reaching with his argument that a much wetter planet
could not support an advanced technological civilization. It is true
that _our_ path to advanced technology required extensive amounts of
dry land, but it does not logically follow that our path is the only
one possible.

It is quite possible that, on some aquatic world a hundred light-years
from here, an advanced alien civilization is noting that most planets
geologically like theirs have much less water, and hence would lack
the globe-spanning ocean that is required for _their_ path to advanced
technology

Jordan,
With regards to "Earth is a very rare planet", that's actually a very
good topic constrictive contribution that I have no arguments with. So
why exactly are you otherwise such a anti-Venusian bigot?

Good old Earth/moon http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01x1.html
"The Earth is not unique because if its oceans. Any planet in the right
part of the habitable zone will have those. What is unique about the
Earth is that it has LAND. If the moon had not carried away most of the
crust, there would be no ocean basins, no land, and no chance for life
to evolve on land."

Good points that do not happen to exclude upon our salty ice covered
proto-moon itself as simply having impacted Earth, perhaps more than
once, plus offering those unavoidable secondary shards of massive lunar
icebergs, thereby depositing it's teratonnes of salty ice and otherwise
having caused serious collateral damage to each of us, and otherwise
causing a serious platonic butt-load of global trauma for mother Earth,
such as having created the artic ocean basin.

Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.o...9a78fedc7b9031

Not so old Venus http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01x2.html
Unfortunately, this old infomercial article is absolutely chuck full of
the usual mainstream status quo of infomercial-science, of the typical
conditional-physics worth of damage-control which seriously sucks and
blows at sharing just about anything but the truth. It's as though the
regular laws of physics and of planetology do not apply to Venus,
especially not to such a newish orb that's well into the process of
becoming a habitable world for the rest of us once we've finished with
having pillaged and raped mother Earth to death.

There's more honest to God and otherwise replicated as scientifically
positive reasons for Venus having sustained other intelligent life, as
having been existing/coexisting upon Venus than not. Of course, if
you're a collaborating Third Reich minion that's status quo or bust,
then none of this means anything to yourself or those of your kind
because, apparently there's none other than us humans in the entire
universe, much less would others be any smarter than us or having become
physiologically more advance, or perhaps at best mere heathens.

BTW; Venus has teratonnes worth of easily available water plus
unlimited renewable energy, thus Venusian ice cold beer is not all that
unlikely, nor all that likely without good demand.

Dry and even Venusian toasty land does NOT represent a world without
it's fair and/or at least sufficient share of renewable water. Not all
other worlds are as overly populated with the likes of such dumbfounded
heathen humans that haven't an honest bone within their highly bigoted
bodies. Not all other worlds are populated by such greedy and arrogant
*******s that would knowingly perpetrate decades of cold-wars for their
next unearned buck. Not all other worlds are based upon incest
mutations of de-evolution and of having promoted religious faith-based
social/political cultisms that if need be would put those of their own
kind on a stick, and then blame others for having taken such actions.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Venus has certainly been a little different and perhaps a whole lot more
planetology rare on behalf of having accommodated intelligent other life
than Earth (at least other than in jest, I've never once insisted that
it's entirely or much less extensively populated with it's own kind),
such as in many ways it's actually a whole lot better off considering it
has such unlimited and 100% renewable energy to burn (sort of speak),
whereas it also hasn't a highly reactive anticathode of a nasty moon to
deal with, and there's certainly not much chance of their having an
ice-age because of not having that moon, and it has also been next to
forever since they've had their last nasty storm, or much less having to
survive horrific impacts or having any of those pesky floods to deal
with.

Earth is a very rare planet (I'd say, so what's the difference; being
rare is a darn good thing)

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...63 05f2699d53
Panspermia via an icy proto-moon still seems perfectly doable for having
biologically terraformed planets other than Earth (much like wandering
ETs or perhaps God having planted remote crops), as well as the random
happenstance via local chemical interactions and/or the goodwill of ET
intelligent designers adding to the soup of complex life as they trek
there way through town.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s327749.htm
"Sitting here, waiting for someone to 'phone' us up is a waste of time."

"The presence of land on our planet is a direct result of an extremely
rare kind of collision with asteroids during its formation, Dr Hoffman
says. This collision led to the formation of our unique type of moon,
which is made of materially formerly part of the primitive Earth's outer
crust."

I'd have to totally agree with "Dr Hoffman", whereas it seems as though
a 4000 km icy proto-moon should rather easily qualify as an effective
terraforming impactor, especially if it's offering somewhat of a salty
ice along with having loads of well protected DNA sequestered within.

Jordan;
1) Hoffman is quite right that many Terrestrial planets may be much
wetter than the Earth. (What he does not mention is that many may
also be much drier: note that Mars, the most Earthlike planet in _
our_ Solar System, is by Earth standards a barren desert).
However ...

2) Hoffman is reaching with his argument that a much wetter planet
could not support an advanced technological civilization. It is true
that _our_ path to advanced technology required extensive amounts of
dry land, but it does not logically follow that our path is the only
one possible.

It is quite possible that, on some aquatic world a hundred light-years
from here, an advanced alien civilization is noting that most planets
geologically like theirs have much less water, and hence would lack
the globe-spanning ocean that is required for _their_ path to advanced
technology

Jordan,
With regards to "Earth is a very rare planet", that's actually a very
good topic constructive contribution that I have no arguments with. So
why exactly are you and of so many others of your kind such
all-or-nothing as anti-Venusian bigots?

Good old Earth/moon http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01x1.html
"The Earth is not unique because if its oceans. Any planet in the right
part of the habitable zone will have those. What is unique about the
Earth is that it has LAND. If the moon had not carried away most of the
crust, there would be no ocean basins, no land, and no chance for life
to evolve on land."

Those ar additionally good points that do not happen to exclude upon our
salty ice covered proto-moon itself as simply having impacted Earth,
perhaps more than once, plus having offered those unavoidable secondary
shards of massive lunar icebergs, thereby depositing it's teratonnes of
salty ice and otherwise having caused serious collateral damage to each
of us, and otherwise having caused a serious geophysical butt-load of
global trauma for mother Earth, such as having created the arctic ocean
basin and perhaps a few other significant impressions.

Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.o...9a78fedc7b9031

Not so old Venus http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01x2.html
Unfortunately, this old article is absolutely chuck full of the usual
mainstream status quo of infomercial-science, of the typical
conditional-physics worth of damage-control which seriously sucks and
blows at sharing just about anything but the truth. It's as though the
regular laws of physics and of planetology do not apply to Venus,
especially not to such a newish orb that's well into the process of
becoming a habitable world for the rest of us once we've finished with
having pillaged and raped mother Earth to death.

There's more honest to God and otherwise replicated as scientifically
positive reasons for Venus having sustained other intelligent life, as
for having been existing/coexisting upon Venus than not. Of course, if
you're a collaborating Third Reich minion that's all status quo or bust,
then none of this means anything to yourself or those of your kind
because, apparently there's none other than us humans in the entire
universe, much less would others be any smarter than us or having become
physiologically more advance, or perhaps at best mere heathens that we
might rather eat.

BTW; Venus has teratonnes worth of easily available water plus
unlimited renewable energy, thus Venusian ice cold beer is not all that
unlikely, nor all that likely without good product demand.

Dry and even Venusian style of extra toasty land that's hosting more
than it's fair share of lava and mud flows does NOT represent a world
that's without it's fair and/or at least sufficient share of renewable
water. Not all other worlds are as overly populated with the likes of
such dumbfounded heathen humans that haven't an honest bone within their
highly bigoted bodies. Not all other worlds are populated by such
greedy and arrogant *******s that would knowingly perpetrate decades of
cold-wars for their next unearned buck. Not all other worlds are based
upon incest mutations of de-evolution and of having promoted religious
faith-based social/political cultisms that if need be would put those of
their own kind on a stick, and then having to blame others for having
taken such actions.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Bill K" wrote in message
ups.com

I was referring to you, dufus, not Mr. Leese. You are quite amusing.

You are quite welcome. And you are quite dumbfounded.
-
Brad Guth



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"John McWilliams" wrote in message


Is there something about the regular laws of physics and of the well
proven and replicated science of radar imaging and of honest
observationology that's over your head?

No, "Brad". He's politely asking you to **** off. Me too.

Sorry to here that only your conditional laws of physics need be
applied, and that only of infomercial-science that simply can not be
replicated is what's keeping your mainstream status quo boats from badly
rocking.

Apparently of what's less than 8 bit B&W, and of such few pixels that
were obtained from a 36 look/pixel composite format of radar imaging is
simply too complex and too freaking truth worthy for the likes of
yourself and those of your kind to manage.

Sorry as hell that I'd ever asked for your best swag and/or supposed
expertise.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG