Guth Venus is way more alive than Usenet

You really are boring aren't you?

My guess is that you haven't had sex in a long time.


"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:a9b941ac0fa48b4e6cf6a85933255c67.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...

Phil,
That's it, the very best of your photographic or of whatever's of
physics or of a science contribution is hereby limited to my sex-life?

Are you saying you'd like to sleep with me? or is it merely that of
mutual fornication that you're interested in?

Am I supposed to be impressed?
Acording to your GOOGLE ) profile, you're another
nobody of a spook/mole.

How much further off-topic do you and your kind of MI/NSA village idiots
intend to take this?

BTW; everything I post is automatically dyslexic encrypted, free of
charge.
-
Brad Guth


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

"Phil" wrote in message


You really are boring aren't you?

My guess is that you haven't had sex in a long time.

Finally, there's absolute proof-positive in my pants that you're another
idiot, because you guess wrong (again).

What's the matter; is PhotoShop or whatever B&W digital photo
enlargement process a whole lot smarter than you are?
-
Brad Guth


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

Brad Guth wrote:
"John McWilliams" wrote in message


Wow! He sure had our number.

Groups deleted.

Double Wow! right back at you. Where the heck did you and your
all-knowing naysayism go, and why is it that you can't manage to
accomplish a little PhotoShop that helps to prove one thing or another
(natural/artificial) about Venus?

Yo, Brad- I am happy to occasionally respond to jibes and rants as long
as they are not cross posted. So, can you condense what it is you are
trying to say to a cogent paragraph or two, vaguely keeping it related
to digital photography?

--
lsmft

Even if you learned to speak English perfectly, whom would you speak it to?

John McWilliams;
Yo, Brad- I am happy to occasionally respond to jibes and rants as long
as they are not cross posted. So, can you condense what it is you are
trying to say to a cogent paragraph or two, vaguely keeping it related
to digital photography?

I'm trying to collaborate that I'm not the one and only village idiot
that can manage to put the likes of PhotoShop or any of a half dozen
other digital photographic methods of enlargement to good use.

I'm asking that others like yourself process the very same composite
radar obtained image to the best that you can, meaning that you crop out
the most interesting 10% worth from the high res image and give it a
good all around effort at enlargement, along with using a few of those
nifty image filters so that the perfectly natural stuff remains as
appearing every bit as entirely natural, and thereby undistorted or
otherwise as not having been unnecessarily contributed to. Then share
as to whatever your best swag can manage to interpret, as to anything
that's the least bit unusual or not.

Resample the original 10% crop at perhaps 3:1 for starters, unsharp it
and do whatever else it is that you'd otherwise accomplish as though it
were important.

If you'd like keeping this perfectly as though all is 100% natural, in
which case just focus your best talents and photo-software expertise
upon the 1% worth that's hosting the 'Fluid Arch, that's actually pretty
hard to miss unless your naysay mindset has no honest intentions of ever
identifying anything whatsoever worth looking at.

Show the rest of us how good and thereby clean of a 3X resampled
enlargement that you can muster without having pushed such few original
pixels off the cliff and subsequently making an absolute mess out of
everything, with perhaps offering a 9X resample/enlargement effort as
being at the upper limit of what I'd like to see the results of whatever
it is that you can accomplish, that should also by rights be somewhat
better results than my best efforts.

Full MAGELLAN composite image page: Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles
low res:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/ht...115s095_1.html

higher res (36 look/pixel):
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif

This isn't exactly a contest, but if your results are even as good as or
hopefully better than mine, I'll post a link and full credits to
whatever webpage you'd care to offer that includes a copy of your best
PhotoShop efforts. As I said, if you wanted to avoid at all cost or
other risk upon taking any path of consideration as to what's
potentially intelligent/artificial, just focus yourself on that other
perfectly natural item that's already looking 'Fluid Arch' like.
-
Brad Guth


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

Once again; instead of focusing our best expertise of talents and
resources upon Venus, how absolutely silly of yourselves and
proof-positive of what totally brown-nosed rusemasters you folks
actually are, afraid of your own shadows and deathly afraid of looking
outside of that little cozy status quo or bust box of your's.

Before we blindly leap ourselves off to other distant worlds or much
less onto our moon (for the first time), perhaps we should think it
through once again. I'm thinking that you folks have got to be
absolutely kidding about utilizing the physically dark surface of our
extremely dusty and highly reactive moon, especially for much of
anything that's on behalf of accommodating optical astronomy.

At best, the nearby and gravity efficient LL-1 zone (moon L1 that's
roughly 60,000 km away from the moon) is relatively clean of space
debris and perhaps far enough away from that nasty moon of our's in
order to humanly survive the combined solar/cosmic/moon TBI dosage, but
that's only if being well enough shielded by a few meters of water.

Our moon's surface is highly if not entirely exposed to solar wind
driven electrostatics and otherwise being that of a naked anticathode
environment that's rather solar/cosmic and locally DNA lethal (far worse
off than anything Van Allen belt related), plus it's continually and
unavoidably running itself into stuff at 30+ km/s, and otherwise gravity
attracting upon all else that's nearby, is therefore good for
accommodating the sorts of robust robotics of those tough little SAR
image receiving modules, but otherwise hardly suited for that of
anything optical or otherwise end-user-friendly unless it's going deep
underground.

Do any of you folks even dare to realize what absolutely terrific
resolution a given focal length of 384,000 km can accomplish on behalf
SAR imaging? (I didn't think so)

Such energy efficient and of purely robotics on behalf of accomplishing
such extended SAR/VLA imaging is actually based upon extremely efficient
deployments of what should not represent 10% of a given Apollo mission,
and/or perhaps not even involving 1% the mass per SAR image receiving
module, and that's obviously without folks ever having to endure the
trauma as to what that sort of nasty lunar surface environment would
otherwise be nailing countless strands of human DNA per second.

Of course the regular laws of physics and I could be entirely wrong. In
which case, how much DNA trauma and/or physical impact trauma can a
human or that of anything optical withstand?
-
Brad Guth


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

Brad Guth wrote:
John McWilliams;
Yo, Brad- I am happy to occasionally respond to jibes and rants as long
as they are not cross posted. So, can you condense what it is you are
trying to say to a cogent paragraph or two, vaguely keeping it related
to digital photography?

I'm trying to collaborate that I'm not the one and only village idiot
that can manage to put the likes of PhotoShop or any of a half dozen
other digital photographic methods of enlargement to good use.

I'm asking that others like yourself process the very same composite
radar obtained image to the best that you can, meaning that you crop out
the most interesting 10% worth from the high res image and give it a
good all around effort at enlargement, along with using a few of those
nifty image filters so that the perfectly natural stuff remains as
appearing every bit as entirely natural, and thereby undistorted or
otherwise as not having been unnecessarily contributed to. Then share
as to whatever your best swag can manage to interpret, as to anything
that's the least bit unusual or not.

Thanks for the reply, but I've determined I can't or won't be able to
participate. And I think the word you want is corroborate.

Best of luck

--
john mcwilliams

"John McWilliams" wrote in message


Thanks for the reply, but I've determined I can't or won't be able to
participate. And I think the word you want is corroborate.

Best of luck

Gee whiz, why am I not the least bit surprised?

No, I believe it's "collaborate" or perhaps corroborate as based upon
whatever collaborative strategies can if ever agree upon, whereas unlike
yourself, I intend to constructively contribute and then share and share
alike.
-
Brad Guth


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

John McWilliams wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
"Bill K" wrote in message
ups.com

Mr. Guth,
You are living proof that the Internet brings out all the fruits and
nuts.

That's odd, because you're the living proof that I've been correct about
this anti-think-tank of a Usenet from hell that sucks and blows all
along.

It's Usenet rusemasters and/or Third Reich minions like yourself that
has us at war with damn near half the world, and there's obviously more
to come.

Wow! He sure had our number.

Groups deleted.

--
john mcwilliams

"Bill K"
You forgot to contriibute anything. Or, was that your intentions?

At least our "John McWilliams" was willing at first to pretend that he
gave a puck.

John McWilliams;
Yo, Brad- I am happy to occasionally respond to jibes and rants as long
as they are not cross posted. So, can you condense what it is you are
trying to say to a cogent paragraph or two, vaguely keeping it related
to digital photography?

I'm trying to collaborate with others in order to demonstrate that I'm
not the one and only village idiot that can manage to put the likes of
PhotoShop or any of a half dozen other digital photographic methods of
enlargement to good use.

I'm asking that others like yourself to process the very same composite
radar obtained image to the best that you can, meaning that you crop out
the most interesting 10% worth from the high res image and give it a
good all around effort at enlargement, along with using a few of those
nifty image filters so that the perfectly natural stuff remains as
appearing every bit as entirely natural, and thereby undistorted or
otherwise as not having been unnecessarily contributed to. Then share
as to whatever your best swag can manage to interpret, as to anything
that's the least bit unusual or not.

Resample the original 10% crop at perhaps 3:1 for starters, unsharp it
and do whatever else it is that you'd otherwise accomplish as though it
were important.

If you'd like keeping this perfectly as though all is 100% natural, in
which case just focus your best talents and photo-software expertise
upon the 1% worth that's hosting the 'Fluid Arch, that's actually pretty
hard to miss unless your naysay mindset has no honest intentions of ever
identifying anything whatsoever worth looking at.

Show the rest of us how good and thereby clean of a 3X resampled
enlargement that you can muster without having pushed such few original
pixels off the cliff and subsequently making an absolute mess out of
everything, with perhaps offering a 9X resample/enlargement effort as
being at the upper limit of what I'd like to see the results of whatever
it is that you can accomplish, that should also by rights be somewhat
better results than my best efforts.

Full MAGELLAN composite image page: Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles
low res:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/ht...115s095_1.html

higher res (36 look/pixel):
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif

This isn't exactly a contest, but if your results are even as good as or
hopefully better than mine, I'll post a link and full credits to
whatever webpage you'd care to offer that includes a copy of your best
PhotoShop efforts. As I said, if you wanted to avoid at all cost or
other risk upon taking any path of consideration as to what's
potentially intelligent/artificial, just focus yourself on that other
perfectly natural item that's already looking 'Fluid Arch' like.
-

"John McWilliams" wrote in message

Thanks for the reply, but I've determined I can't or won't be able to
participate. And I think the word you want is corroborate.

Best of luck

Gee whiz, folks, why am I not the least bit surprised?

No, I believe it's "collaborate" or perhaps corroborate as based upon
whatever collaborative strategies can if ever agree upon, whereas unlike
yourself, I intend to constructively contribute and then share and share
alike.

What the heck was I ever thinking, of course "John McWilliams" is
actually cloaked as just another supposedly nice sort of guy that's
actually nothing less than a mainstream status quo bigot of a certified
rusemaster, as well as representing yet another brown-nosed minion to
whatever the current administration's Third Reich has within their
perverted mindset to do, or not to do.

Silly me, and why am I not surprised that folks that typically claim as
knowing all there is to know, as such wouldn't dare to share, much less
offer an honest swag as based upon their supposed expertise.
-
Brad Guth


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

OOPS!
Apparently the truth and nothing but the hard photographic digital truth
is simply too much truth for this anti-think-tank of rec.photo.digital
naysayism to cope with.

I guess there's nothing worth going for that's within this fine
all-American Usenet group of MI/NSA~NASA rusemasters that's in any way
worth a tinkers damn or otherwise honestly capable of being the least
bit human. Must be more of those MIB nondisclosure enforcers hard at
work.
-
Brad Guth


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