Ulterior motives of "Pseudoscience" against "craterchains"

Ulterior motives of "Pseudoscience" against "craterchains"

Just when things get a little interesting, whereas the truth actually starts to hurt, as such the "all-knowing and "know-thy-enemy" moderator locks everything down, as with the following topic in which I thought there was sufficient room for a little honest tit-for-tat of applied physics and otherwise perfectly logical science, not that I'm convinced that ET has been tossing rocks at us.

Crater Research, by; craterchains (Norval
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=36047

Earth, moon and Mars offer similar crater patterns, though patterns of crater chains are least likely to have been created upon Venus, unless we're talking of relatively compact 1000+t meteors of iron or heavier substances, as for the surrounding atmospheric ocean of mostly CO2 isn't so easily penetrated, at least moderating any impact velocity to a mere fraction of what could easily impact the likes of Earth, if not entirely deflecting such intruders altogether.

There may be an Earth/Venus connection to Mars and Sirius. Whereas, our moon may have been purely happenstance, or it may have arrived along with Venus (Sirius/c).

Even if some don't fully concur with my notions, a few of us should focus the honest readers and capable researchers upon sufficiently narrow topics, so as the outcome can become recorded as fact to the best of our abilities, and otherwise of honest human interpretations and not of any intentional science fiction, along with our insisting that the forum moderator(s) eliminate off-topic comments or the sorts of intentional negativity as delivered for the sheer spite of it (as often provided by the likes of "blackholesun" and his personal incest borg cloning partner "Persol"), which unfortunately would even curtail a few of my zinger replies. Although, if those negative (all knowing but anti-everything) folks were not permitted in in the first place, as such I wouldn't have the necessary motivation nor focus upon which to deliver another well qualified zinger.

I personally see nothing terribly wrong nor improper with the ongoing analysis of crater chain patterns being offered by "Norval", and I believe that I can even add a little something of fact into that pretext, along with some perfectly good and honest introductions of what I perceive the likes of Sirius, Venus and our moon might have to improve upon the overall stew, especially upon those "what if" factors, all of which being in the fullest accordance of known science and laws of physics. As then, and if need be, we can sort of advertise these worthwhile topics, which should have been allowed within the utmost serious discussion forums in the first place.

Unfortunately, the moderators of most "know thy enemy" forums are often the king or queen borg, which has incest cloned the very sorts of folks we'd like to see eliminated, and preferably in the most despicable style possible. So, since that's not about to happen, chances are that honest individuals like yourself and I are going to have to continue defending our research and thus fending for ourselves in spite of this mainstream status quo of orchestrated dog-wagging, spin and damage-control. Perhaps the best way that's to be accomplished is through extremely narrow focus upon one individual topic at a time, and not to stray no matters how provoked we become. In other words, it wouldn't be such a good notion as to fly some big-ass aircraft full of mostly innocent folks into some tall building that's chuck full of other mostly innocent folks, simply to get our point across, even though at times I've jested as though that's not such a bad idea, as chances are that even if we didn't have any actual WMD, they'd just as soon nuke us first, and then ask questions.

Seeing how outright dishonest and capable folks here on Earth have become, as those willing to follow and bid for the deeds on behalf of nearly any morally insane warlord, as such willing to essentially eat their own kind on behalf of defending their cloak and dagger mainstream status quo, obviously intent upon accomplishing this task without a lick of morality nor remorse, as such chances are that a few ETs may not drive "Good Humor Ice Cream" trucks, and are not necessarily any better off at their table manners either.

If even 1% of ETs are skullduggery types, and capable of merely directing the likes of meteors at whomever, thus allowing gravity and good mathematics to accomplish their targeting and subsequently 99.999% of the horrific impact energy, as such we'll be in for a real surprise of our lifetimes, and perhaps sooner than later. As for what better timing to take over an Earth like world, having essentially a paper thin atmosphere that's relatively easy for large (100+t) meteors to penetrate, and especially when its intellectually bigoted inhabitance are focused upon killing off one another over dwindling energy resources and fresh water, meanwhile doing just about everything possible as to bring about global warming, and otherwise when nearly all of their defenses are so badly divided and depleted, and also because of their wasteful cold-wars and ongoing self inflicted strife, there's still no real global defence system on-line, and of still nothing whatsoever established on their moon. I mean to suggest; how pathetic is that, or what?

Speaking of incest cloned borgs; I'm thinking, another GW Bush administration should really do the trick, leaving all of our barn doors wide open to just about any ET that's in the neighborhood. And, what better neighborhood than having Venus so nearby, having such enormous resources of energy, plus a darn good cloak of an atmosphere that's nearly meteor proof and certainly offering sufficient shield from solar/cosmic radiation.

All that being said, I suppose that Lord Stryderunknown will in fact seize upon the moment as to locking this thread down, you know, just in case some honest soul might get the wrong impression of what the truth and nothing but the truth could behold. All you need to do is to look at the growing list of their cloned borgs, of their evasiveness and orchestrated efforts at getting their seed moderator to locking something that's getting interesting. Take notice how the collective efforts of (Q), SkinWalker, Avatar, blackholesun and Persol (among others) have added nothing of honest science nor physics upon the "what if" factors of this "Crater Research" topic.

Regards, Brad Guth (BBCI h2g2 U206251) http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-242.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Brad doth speaketh:

I thought there was sufficient room for a little honest tit-for-tat of applied physics and otherwise perfectly logical science

Perhaps there was, although it won't come from Norval or you.

Even if some don't fully concur with my notions...

Correction, none of us concur in the least.

Although, if those negative (all knowing but anti-everything) folks were not permitted in in the first place, as such I wouldn't have the necessary motivation nor focus upon which to deliver another well qualified zinger.

Your delirium is equaled only by your color of black, Mr. Pot.

I personally see nothing terribly wrong nor improper with the ongoing analysis of crater chain patterns being offered by "Norval", and I believe that I can even add a little something of fact into that pretext

Of course you see nothing wrong with it - you and he are one and the same. Adding a fact would be a first.

Unfortunately, the moderators of most "know thy enemy" forums are often the king or queen borg, which has incest cloned the very sorts of folks we'd like to see eliminated, and preferably in the most despicable style possible.

I would be surprised if that statement didn't get you banned. Funny how you make it out as if the worlds science forums are against you. Think about that.

honest individuals like yourself and I are going to have to continue defending our research and thus fending for ourselves in spite of this mainstream status quo of orchestrated dog-wagging, spin and damage-control

Are you really free of guile? If you think so, I'll be happy to point out your misgivings.

In other words, it wouldn't be such a good notion as to fly some big-ass aircraft full of mostly innocent folks into some tall building that's chuck full of other mostly innocent folks, simply to get our point across, even though at times I've jested as though that's not such a bad idea

You're sicker than I thought.

Seeing how outright dishonest and capable folks here on Earth have become...

So, what planet are you from, Mr. Pot?

I mean to suggest; how pathetic is that, or what?

Pathetic ... as is that rant of diatribe? Poor Brad, the weight of the world is upon your shoulders.

Take notice how the collective efforts of (Q), SkinWalker, Avatar, blackholesun and Persol (among others) have added nothing of honest science nor physics upon the "what if" factors of this "Crater Research" topic.

At this point, no one cares one way or another if Norval wants to learn anything about science, clearly he doesn't. And neither do you.

Those who are interested will decide for themselves whether our contributions to that thread are of value or not. Clearly, you do not, but lets remember the worlds forums are against you, so all we are left with is the status quo.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

(Q);
"At this point, no one cares one way or another if Norval wants to learn anything about science, clearly he doesn't. And neither do you."

I rest my case, the collective borg glove certainly fits Mr.(Q)

As in spite of such nice folks or borg like collectives such as "(Q)", I've learned far more than I ever imagined about truthful history, science and physics. Though simply because I choose to place a little human spin on behalf of the soul of humanity into this soup mix (no less involving the dreaded morality factor of truth or consequences), as such the likes of "(Q)", which is pretty much like all the other incest cloned borgs, remain as without a real identity, and therefore nothing more than a programmed computer routine that's running amuck.

Thus pretell, how can anyone possibly insult such a "status quo" computer routine?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I used to obey and honor adults regardless of their points of view, but now I am that adult, and beyond redemption at that.

In other words, I didn't offer anything into adult discussions unless asked, and then I only provided what I thought would be accepted, or else.

It seems that, ever since I went off looking (nearly four years ago) for the reasons and/or logic (other than being quoted rime and verse from the NASA/Apollo bible), as to why supposedly smart folks were not taking a second look-see at Venus, and that because I've subsequently identified such numerous associations with way more than adequate motives, opportunity and certainly the capability of the mainstream status quo, as to have essentially snookered nearly all of humanity, plus that pretext being continually fortified with those cold-war agendas that for no apparent reason seem to never end. As such, I've shared what I've learned, that which clearly justifies the reasons for nearly all the levels of orchestrated bashings that I've received.

Then, when I merely pick up their spent flak (often still warm and fuzzy) in order to return the favor, all of the sudden I'm the bad guy, the messenger from hell that simply is not going away.

Just because some folks are not as willing to jump onto my bandwagon from hell, as to be inferring that some, if not a good deal of what I've discovered about Earth and the inhabitance upon which that clearly would rather be snookered over just about anything such as our moon and Venus than not, and of those preferably being a portion of the ones responsible for doing the snookering is nearly always best, since that's become so profitable and all, as even better yet if you're on the cold-war winning side to boot, as that way if you're still lucky enough as to not being onboard some mistaken flight to Tel Aviv, or onboard some other flight that's headed into an extremely tall building, or onboard some damaged reentry shuttle when a certain ABL just so happens to be cruising along at 40,000' and within range, as such you'll live to see another day, and that's rather an important factor even if you don't have any hidden WMD, though obviously that's no guarantee if you're someone in Iraq.

Unfortunately, the incest cloned borgs encharge of dog-wagging, spin and damage-control on behalf of their NASA/Apollo formulated mainstream status quo are being duplicated as I speak, whereas purging the ranks of humanity from this infestation of mutated DNA slime isn't going to be easy nor without a great deal of collateral carnage. Draining the intellectual cesspool of what's been created by the those folks that claim having "the right stuff" is going to be a downright nasty job. Whereas forums such as this Sciforums.com could and perhaps should take the point on this opportunity, though somehow I can't see that happening.

Thus the bulk of morality for what as transpired, and of what's about to happen, remains firmly within that skewed space toilet of intellectual incest, that which as such cesspools tend to go will show us no remorse until every last soul on Earth is either snookered or quite dead.

Unlike the borg collectives of these "know-thy-enemy" forums, I've long since stipulated that I make mistakes, though unintentional and fortunately none which have taken innocent lives, nor blown trillions upon astronomy/astrophysics agendas that 99.9% of humanity is never going to receive squat from.

Regards, Brad Guth (BBCI h2g2 U206251) http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-242.htm

 

Bradguth,
As you should know the forums are about "discussion", namely someone shares an idea and criticism ensues to either help or hinder their way of thinking. (I say help or hinder because at the end of the day it's totally down to the perception of the individual thats having criticism given to them and of course the professionalism of those that criticise.)

On Craterchains
The Craterchains thread ran for nearly 20 pages of about 15 posts each, it didn't mean the topic was popular because of it's content but had just become a repeated barrage of offense from both pro and con side to the "theorum". What also pretty much nailed the thread with this was when one of the area's of a Theorised Craterchain was proven to be Pitholes, it just suggested that if Craterchains were to truly exist in the way depicted alot more searching for evidence would be required.

It might be suggested everyone could lend a hand looking for bombruns on other planets, moons and asteroids however the likelihood of actually finding some generated by aliens in an intergalactic war are too remote for most people to bother. I'm not saying this to sound unfair but that is pretty much the conclusion that was drawn and caused a slanging match repartition.

Some thoughts for Brad
My suggestion is this and I hope you do take heed of it, Our solar system only has one planet that is inhabited and that happens to be the one your own right now. I don't think a world of astronomers is going to miss an alien race sitting on it's doorstep especially since the technology for telescopes has been evolving to deal with ever larger ranges.

A simple test of Alien life in reference to life upon our planet is this;
We are creatures that need daylight to see, so during night we turn lights on. On the darkside of planets and moons in our solar system do you see the lights of alien cities?

If you can't see light and suggest perhaps they use fire (like torches, Candles, laterns) then the likelihood of space travel is remote, in fact even communication with light (Lasers) would be too remote for them.

"Them/They", Damage Control and Disinformation agents
It's funny how these terms appear in posts by people that have theories that are "Out of the ball park". (I think thats how you Americans term it) Their theorises are usually so far beyond that of the consensus and lack any forms of credible foundation, in fact so far so that it's not even Pseudoscience just plain fiction.

When it's stated that their theories are ludicrous, they tend to conclude that they must be a government agent sent to spy upon the forums or sent to silence them, or just to cast doubt for the essence of a big coverup.

The reality is most of the posters are just people like yourself that post on the forums not agents. They don't concoct too many wild theories and if they do they know to take any criticism with a pinch of salt, in fact maintaining some essense of professionalism can actually mean benefiting from the criticism.

Getting a point across
If you intend to get a point across you don't have to do a kamikaze method of blowing a bunch of people to bits, the only point that ever made was the individuals involved were a bunch of lunatics that needed locking up from hurting themselves and others.

Firstly you have to realise WHAT IS YOUR POINT. Without realising that your going to get nowhere fast.
Also you should note credability, If you are a poorly educated person without more than a basic education, It will show in both logic and the way you present your point. In fact without having a decent eductation with certificates to back your education up, then the likelihood is you will be nothing more than a joke in your field.

Secondly you have to try and create a credible post/paper that SOURCES other documents that actually help to conclude that your POINT is correct. DO NOT IGNORE papers that suggest your POINT is incorrect, otherwise your taking a biased view with investigation and this will come back to bite you in the preverbial BUTT from a peer review.

Thirdly, once you have investigated/researched other peoples points in regards to your own POINT, you might want to review your POINT to make sure it's still solid in reasoning and hasn't been ousted by Revelation.

Four, Try to be concise as mountains of text is an eyesore and even be simplified with your wording, being fancy doesn't always help get a point across. (Proven in some of my posts)

In short,
"Do not say a sieve can hold water unless you have tested the sieve to see if it can".

 

Thanks for the good, the bad and the uggly feedback, as I'll certainly reflect upon your statements from time to time, as purely on behalf of my trying to exclude upon the sorts of opportunities for others to attack without just cause.

Not that I'm capable of moderating squat, at least not without losing my cool, though if you (as in yourself being the almighty and all knowing moderator) had limited and/or elimated the "repeated barrage of offense", whereas such the pro factions on behalf of defending their "craterchains" notions could have been given a better shot in the dark.

Folks like Norval and myself are not here as to be bashed at every turn, whereas a good number of your members are indeed focused upon doing just that, having no intentions whatsoever of sharing anything that's the least bit outside their mainstream status quo, nor of being specific upon anything that has not previously been moderated to death by the likes of Special Relativity, NASA/Apollo, and so forth.

Your statement; "the individuals involved were a bunch of lunatics that needed locking up from hurting themselves and others" should firstly apply to those provoking and/or of attacking in the first place, as where within the entro of the "craterchains" argument was there an attack upon humanity, or even upon intellectual worth, at least I saw nothing of any threat, though I suppose you and others you'd rather support saw WMD written all over the freaking place.

Other than all that, I'll certainly look forward to seeing some improvements upon both sides.

 

With further regard to "Crater Research"
If you'd eliminated most of the purely negativism, as such the "Crater Research" topic might not have become but two pages instead of 20, whereas those insisting upon opposing by way of bashing everything under their sun to death, those individuals should have posted their own "Anti-Crater-Research" topic because, that's what 99% of the arguments were either about or focused upon becoming.

Another thought has come to mind, that of counting on your fingers of honest new comers to the crater topic, and/or of folks that were actually attempting to sort things out. I mean, are we talking 2, 4 or perhaps 6, I think not.

This is another perfectly good argument that deserves my input.

Stryderunknown;
"A simple test of Alien life in reference to life upon our planet is this;
We are creatures that need daylight to see, so during night we turn lights on. On the darkside of planets and moons in our solar system do you see the lights of alien cities?"

"If you can't see light and suggest perhaps they use fire (like torches, Candles, laterns) then the likelihood of space travel is remote, in fact even communication with light (Lasers) would be too remote for them."
-

Here you're assuming that a nocturnal adapted/evolved individual having perhaps as much as 170,000 lumen/watt sensitivity to 407 nm, as opposed to our human 1,700 lumen/watt at 507 nm is offering a fair and balanced comparison, and that in spite of such an enormous differential, that I must somehow prove that for an alien city to exist, that as such it must firstly be artificially illuminated to our inefficient standards, even though that green-glow of illuminating O2 that was recorded by KECK-II, as nicely lighting up their nighttime clouded environment would seem more than sufficient by itself, not to mention the near-UV and even a little UV/a from star light getting through, and especially of earthshine photons that could easily penetrate by as much as a 25% factor of opacity through thinner portions of them cool nighttime clouds, as such natural sources of photons would offer way more than sufficient surface illumination.

Besides, if it's supposedly so damn hot and nasty, whom in their right mind would intentionally turn on additional heat producing lights?

I've actually suggested upon something like efficient diamond LEDs, although ionize gas is certainly doable, and at perhaps as much as one watt per individual would be nearly blinding to any decent nocturnal, as another notion on behalf of Venus folks utilizing some rather minimal bio-illuminance (delivering 10 cd/m2) seems entirely rational.

http://www.superbrightleds.com/leds/w4_specs.htm This link locates upon a white LED that offers 10 cd @15 degree divergence, while consuming 68 mw. I believe that's 0.147 cd/mw, or 147 CD/W.

At least in my limited way, I'm merely suggesting that other possibilities might have pre-existed, of those which instruments and obviously the sorts of formally bigoted intellectual premise against ETs, at least as of to date, have not been deployed as for detecting squat. ESA's Venus Express may offer us another chance at doing just that, detecting signs of past and hopefully present day life.

Others can certainly provide their notions of "what if" and/or of better alternatives to other than humans surviving upon Venus without getting all huffy over nothing. I'd also take into consideration of what the known laws of physics and applied technology might hae to offer humanity a go of it in spite of Venus being so hot and nasty.

BTW; speaking of folks NOT seeing other lights; how many hundreds of millions if not billions have already been blown upon Mars over the past three decades alone? And of how many additional hundreds of billions if not a trillion plus dollars are slated for Mars? And, where's the moral scientific justification for that sort of continuing fiasco???

Actually, I'm not here as one of your "all knowing" Mr. Answer Man (I'm not a wizard like "blackholesun"), as I'm more like the Mr. Question Man from hell, such as questioning why all the opposition to what's situated upon Venus, and otherwise questioning why we don't have the LSE-CM/ISS under our belt, instead of under the belt of ESA, China or perhaps Russia?

 

BTW; speaking of our seeing NOT other lights, how many hundreds of billions if not a trillion plus dollars are slated for Mars? And, where's the moral justification for that sort of fiasco?

Um...because we're curious about the planet? Just like the Russians were curious with Venus back in the 70's and early 80's.

http://www.mentallandscape.com/V_Venus.htm

And just because you think your eyes are appearently better then ours to see such "structures" as this:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

doesn't mean we have to agree. I see blury radar images of old lava flows. I can assume about 99% of everyone else also sees old lava flows. Besides if you can disagree with us, then us "cloned incest borg" who to you should be banned (talk about being partial to just your point of view) should be able to disagree with you. Brad you haven't swayed my view of anything because you haven't shown any of us anything that says "Hey, aliens on Venus!" just as Norval doesn't have the means to show us that a large alien war cause a few craters chains.

Basically you just get way too defensive for my tastes because you listen to no one but yourself. And if you do take the time to actually read what someone says you insult their intelligence with your incest clone shit...which got old...fast. So you are on a mission; not to actually learn anything but to preach your ideas as hard and as fast as a greedy televangelist that swindles money from the elderly, anywhere you can.

Now do you see why you aren't considered welcome here?

 

Blackholesun,
Old Lava flows is exactly like what I saw in the image previously, along with a 3 dimensional representation that also suggested lavaflows and surface cracks/channels.

There was a singular area that looked like a monolith, however it was an optical illusion caused by the terrain and how the shadows fell. (Namely it looked like shadows were formed in two directions opposite to one another, even though a shadow should only fall one way, but as I said it was an optical illusion)

 

Remember Stryder that this is an SAR image so "shadows" would be whatever terrain is blocking the radar beam. Or it could be a material that absorbs radar better then the surrounding terrain.

 

Actually the point there is that the terrain at particular angles isn't going to reflect the beams. This is what I mean by shadows, namely the lack of reflection causes a shadow.

 

Gotcha. So you're talking about angle of incidence and the fact that some of the beam won't return to the receiver. In that case a "shadow" would form...much like a stealth fighter uses backscatter to reduce its signature.

 

Wow, I was going to suggest something a bit more to the point about over-moderating, and/or perhaps not moderating enough but, lo and behold there's actually some specific language about at least one of the most important topics; SAR imaging.

Pixel per pixel, is not SAR imaging a good step or two above conventional/optical CCD?

I think so, and the fact that the image was obtained at roughly 43° is another plus, then of the items in question are those appropriately facing us, as opposed to being on the opposit side of this 5+km mountainous range, then add in the composite of three SAR images compiled into one, making the looks per pixel count at 12, which certainly adds another truth improvement, though at less resolution.

This same SAR imaging was capturing everything other that surround and throughout what I've called a township like setting, bridge, tarmac and so forth.

Upon photoshop enlargements, all pixel patterns were processed equally, though obviously anyone can over-crank on the photoshop filters to a point of no-return (I've done that several times). Fortunately, all of us can "reset" from the original and take another swipe at the image.

Actually, the image attachment of http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3051&stc=1 was one of my older attempts, since then I've gotten somewhat better, and subsequently whole lot more efficient image/file size to boot. Although, I'm still stuck with some fairly old photoshop software, thus I'd like to see what others might accomplish as extracted from the nearly raw Magellan original: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif

If need be, we should just focus upon the tarmac issue, or perhaps of something other that to me looks perfectly natural as being that "fluid arch" attribute, as it as well as all of the surrounding terrain managed to enlarge without turning itself into something artificial. On the other hand, those interconnected complex reservoirs could go either way.

 

blackholesun;
"because we're curious about the planet? Just like the Russians were curious with Venus back in the 70's and early 80's"

That's quite interesting, though perhaps not on my nickel, at least not billions worth of nickels.

I knew for a fact that Mars was sufficiently sub-frozen to death, and otherwise well pulverised and sufficiently TBI to boot, and I knew all of that long before this latest round of spendy probes. So unless someone picks up a thermal signature, or some radio signal that isn't supposed to be there, I'm not in favor of flushing another billion, much less hundreds of billions upon Mars, not to mention suffering the 100:1 impact of artificial CO2 upon Earth (how much is it worth just to clean up after the fact, or is that something you're going to pau for).

And of your "doesn't mean we have to agree" is perfectly OK, although it would be nice to see some images of whatever you're basing that observational expertise upon. I call it "observationology" as being yet another science, especially when so much can be other than what's depicted.

BTW; I only get defensive when I've realized where the other guy is going, as in intending to stuff me into that intellectual space toilet that you keep insisting is the one and only truth there is.

Interpreting an observation of what was obtained by way of a NSA/CIA proven SAR imaging system is just that, a human interpretation that led me to look a bit closer at the facts. And behold, I came into some conclusions that are way outside the box, and so what?

Actually, instead of merely insiders, I'd like to advertise this topic in order to get other expertise involved, as it seems there's a finite limit as to what a couple of guys that are obviously opposed to almost everything under the sun are going to contribute.

 

Pixel per pixel, is not SAR imaging a good step or two above conventional/optical CCD?

No not really because the resolution of SAR or radar in general is by far inferior to higher wavelengths. If it were possible space agencies would prefer to map the surface using visible wavelengths or just plain higher wavelengths in general. Unfortunately the atmosphere prevents such imaging. So the only thing we have is radar to map the surface. What is the outcome? Lower resolution data.

Let's look at Magellan's SAR specs:

* Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR)
o Frequency: 2.385 GHz
o Peak Power: 325 W
o Pulse Length: 26.5 microsec
o PRF: 4400-5800 Hz
o Swath Width: 25 km (variable)
o Data Acquisition Rate: 806 kbps
o Downlink Quantization: 2 bits
* Operates in SAR, altimeter, and radiometer modes
o SAR Resolution: 150m range/150m azimuth
o Altimeter Resolution: 30m
o Radiometer Accuracy: 2 degree C

But there is hope. Altimeter data of the area will show whether you're right or your full of crap...given it will show you fine structure on the surface when the altimeter data is overlaid with the SAR data. Although I don't have a clue where that part of Venus that image is taken (I looked around) so I can't grab the data myself to make sure but I'll keep looking because I have a damn good feeling that when height is added to the equation that parabollics and hydrogen production plants will cease to exist. But given that there is a 3 km limited resolution anyhow and that there isn't near enough detail to even remotely decipher building let alone their function I was pretty confident anyhow. Then again your "natural rock formations" look like an amphitheater to me.

 

To make a priori assumptions that features in image above are "structures, roads, quarry sites, accomadations, silos, bridges, aircraft/airships," etc. is a very anthropocentric perspective.

I'm interested in why you believe these things Bradguth. What first pointed you to these hypotheses?

 

That's what I'm trying to get to too. I mean I have an SAR image of Palm Valley, Australia right here:

http://www.op.dlr.de/ne-hf/SRL-2/p47974_palm.html

That reasonably straight line to the right looks like a highway....but its not. It's a canyon with a river at the bottom.

A blurry pixel here or there does not define proof of an alien existence. To convince us, I want to see a production plant that looks like a production plant....not a rock cliff.

 

A little background info - Brad has been spamming other science forums with his fantasies for a few years now, I'm not sure if he's been banned yet - perhaps that's why he's here. The same pattern is emerging - he won't engage in a discussion but will simply continue with the insullts and of course, the fantasies.

Good luck to all.

 

Dear "(Q)", or whomever the hell you really are. Unlike yourself, at least I exist as a real person, though obviously according to the likes of yourself I can't even tie my own shoes, much less change my own diaper. Yet you come along as suggesting to others that you're "all knowing", and somehow entitled to enforce your "Skull and Bones" nondisclosure policy when and wherever it suits your ulterior motives.

Besides doing what you're accomplishing againt anyone suggesting there's something other outside of your mainstream stattus quo box, can you perchance offer us an actual example of a personal contribution, other than your bodly elliminations, that which obviously nobody wants to touch?

BTW; In spite of folks like yourself, I'm adding another honest contribution of my own free will, and of my own words to the "Venus Offers Whatever It Takes For UFOs" http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37923

Regards, Brad Guth (BBCI h2g2 U206251) http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-242.htm

 

blackholesun,
Thanks for showing us that you actually cared enough to review something other of SAR/SIR-C/X-SAR imaging, and I'll agree with your interpretation/analysis of that road-like looking formation, though as for my interpretation (considering the greater surrounding territory (as I'd extensively accomplished prior to identifying squat upon Venus), as being more likely of something natural than not, especially since there's no community like illusion(s) at either end or anywhere other along the path of it, much less of intersections, and there's certainly no apparent suspension or other bridge like attribute, as well as I see nothing whatsoever that looks like a complex/interconnected set of reservoirs, nothing of symmetrical rock quarry sites, and I'll be damned if I can identify any tarmac looking considerations, nor of a dozen other items of interest that the Venus image suggest as being more likely artificial than not.

"A blurry pixel here or there does not define proof of an alien existence. To convince us, I want to see a production plant that looks like a production plant....not a rock cliff."

Fair enough, although at this relatively poor resolution, what should an alien "production plant" look like in SAR format?

Obviously we need 3+ pixels worth in at least one direction, and of at least 2+ in other directions, which doesn't give us all that much to work with unless it's really big. Though fortunately "big" has little if anything to do with disqualifying what's potentially artificial. None the less, I'll get back to you on that topic of a "production plant", or at least my best and honest interpretation of what such an alien production plant might look like.

Even though "SkinWalker" has apparent ulterior motives, I'll try to accommodate his limited perspective as well, as if nothing else it'll demonstrate how superior I am, or at least open minded enough as to consider the possibilities before flushing everything into his intellectual blackhole.