There is or at least has been other intelligent life existing/
coexisting on Venus, and lo and behold I've still got those rather
nifty radar obtained pictures of 36 confirming looks per pixel, plus
all the regular laws of physics and the best available science on my
side of this deductive observationology interpretation.

At least there's still no other viable explanation as to those hot
rocks looking so entirely rational, configured as though representing
a township along with its bridge, multiple reservoirs, tarmac and even
a few too many other engineered attributes like a few airships that
would make perfectly good sense.

Not that we humans along with our usual naysay mindset could ever
appreciate what to do with all of the renewable energy that's so
freaking available, the hundreds of teratonnes worth of h2o that's
contained within them acidic clouds, the advantage afforded by way of
having 90.5% gravity along with the 65 kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, or any
of the easily extractable raw elements because of all the active
geothermal conditions of the surrounding surface that's losing roughly
256 fold greater thermal energy than Earth (because Venus is less old
than Earth).

Just because its robust atmosphere is chuck full of S8 and CO2 plus
other newish planetology considerations doesn't mean that a sufficient
Ovglove suit and applied technology couldn't accommodate a few our
highly bigoted souls of such profound denial.  Of course, cruising
along within our composite rigid airship, along with all of that ice
cold beer and pizza isn't exactly all that insurmountable for doing
Venus in the buff (sort of speak).  Even the Venus L2(VL2) POOF city
is technically doable for our frail DNA as of more than a decade ago.

Unfortunately, the naysayers of Usenet are in such total denial that
even multiple truths confirming anything that's off-world intelligent
isn't worth squat, as they'd much rather insist that we've walked on
our moon, and otherwise insist that we can manage to survive on the
likes of Mars or that of some godforsaken other moon that'll cost us
trillions of our hard earned loot, with damn little if anything to
show for it, other than a few weird spores that could easily terminate
most all of human life and a few too many other species back here on
mother Earth that's in the process of going GW postal on us because of
our physically dark, somewhat salty and otherwise absolutely massive
mascon of such a nearby moon, that's unavoidably impacting our 98.5%
fluid Earth in a very GW way.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

Once again, Usenet is dead and the world gets to pay the same old
status quo price over and over, including Iraq, WWIII, WWIV and if
there's anything left for WWV (the final yellowcake war because most
all of fossil fuel has been expended and geothermal extractions are
getting out of control, along with our having 100 meters of extra
toasty ocean depth to deal with whatever's left of salty dry land to
fight over).

Venus being the next best thing to early or proto Earth seems almost
like too much of a good thing.  Too bad it's not ours for the taking.

There's spare/surplus local energy to burn (sort of speak), as in
teraWatts available in order to extract and/or process whatever.

There's no question that the active planetology of Venus is worth much
more to an intelligent ET than anything Earth as to offer.

The surface complex that's "guthvenus" isn't merely a collection of
weird (one of a kind) hot rocks as looking so downright rational and
intelligent worthy.

Venus is not outside the applied physics of what's easily accomplished
within the spec of existing technology.

It's many times easier to accomplish Venus than our moon.

The newish planetology of Venus is physics and science friendly.

Our NASA and even ESA are each working towards excluding all such
knowledge of whatever's intelligent about Venus, and Usenet has been
an extention of Zionism.  Go figure otherwise.
-
Brad Guth

Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to the Zion
mindset.

Otherwise the planet Venus along with its 256 fold of geothermal
energy that's greater than what Earth has to deal with, and as such
geothermal energy of a newish planetology is going away from Venus, is
just too much of a good thing.

Too bad that honest observationology is so gosh darn taboo/
nondisclosure rated to boot.

Too bad the the best of available science can't be shared and shared
alike.

Venus is ET doable (though not in the buff), and possibly even
survivable by locals that are simply evolved as smarter and/or better
adapted than us.

We're not being told the whole truth and nothing but the truth about
Venus.  Gee whiz, our Zion government has been lying to us again (what
a surprise).
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth  wrote:

> Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to the
> Zion mindset.
> 
> Otherwise the planet Venus along with its 256 fold of
> geothermal energy that's greater than what Earth has to deal
> with, and as such geothermal energy of a newish planetology is
> going away from Venus, is just too much of a good thing.
> 
> Too bad that honest observationology is so gosh darn taboo/
> nondisclosure rated to boot.
> 
> Too bad the the best of available science can't be shared and
> shared alike.
> 
> Venus is ET doable (though not in the buff), and possibly even
> survivable by locals that are simply evolved as smarter and/or
> better adapted than us.
> 
> We're not being told the whole truth and nothing but the truth
> about Venus.  Gee whiz, our Zion government has been lying to
> us again (what a surprise).

We'll see Venus straight overhead at midnight before we see you 
get a clue, Crazy Brad.

On Jun 25, 10:09 am, John Griffin  wrote:
> BradGuth  wrote:
> > Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to the
> > Zion mindset.
>
> > Otherwise the planet Venus along with its 256 fold of
> > geothermal energy that's greater than what Earth has to deal
> > with, and as such geothermal energy of a newish planetology is
> > going away from Venus, is just too much of a good thing.
>
> > Too bad that honest observationology is so gosh darn taboo/
> > nondisclosure rated to boot.
>
> > Too bad the the best of available science can't be shared and
> > shared alike.
>
> > Venus is ET doable (though not in the buff), and possibly even
> > survivable by locals that are simply evolved as smarter and/or
> > better adapted than us.
>
> > We're not being told the whole truth and nothing but the truth
> > about Venus.  Gee whiz, our Zion government has been lying to
> > us again (what a surprise).
>
> We'll see Venus straight overhead at midnight before we see you
> get a clue, CrazyBrad.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You're saying that the regular laws of physics and of the best
available science doesn't apply to Venus, but otherwise everything is
perfectly doable about Mars or having walked upon our moon?

Is there a new Zion fart of a reason for this skewed analogy of
essentially physics and science fuckology?
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth  wrote:

> On Jun 25, 10:09 am, John Griffin 
> wrote: 
>> BradGuth  wrote:
>> > Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to the
>> > Zion mindset.
>>
>> > Otherwise the planet Venus along with its 256 fold of
>> > geothermal energy that's greater than what Earth has to
>> > deal with, and as such geothermal energy of a newish
>> > planetology is going away from Venus, is just too much of a
>> > good thing. 
>>
>> > Too bad that honest observationology is so gosh darn taboo/
>> > nondisclosure rated to boot.
>>
>> > Too bad the the best of available science can't be shared
>> > and shared alike.
>>
>> > Venus is ET doable (though not in the buff), and possibly
>> > even survivable by locals that are simply evolved as
>> > smarter and/or better adapted than us.
>>
>> > We're not being told the whole truth and nothing but the
>> > truth about Venus.  Gee whiz, our Zion government has been
>> > lying to us again (what a surprise).
>>
>> We'll see Venus straight overhead at midnight before we see
>> you get a clue, CrazyBrad.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> You're saying that the regular laws of physics and of the best
> available science doesn't apply to Venus, but otherwise
> everything is perfectly doable about Mars or having walked
> upon our moon? 

No.  I'm saying that we'll see Venus straight overhead at 
midnight before we see you get a clue, Crazy Brad.

> Is there a new Zion fart of a reason for this skewed analogy
> of essentially physics and science fuckology?

I have no idea what a "Zion fart of a reason" might be.  It seems 
likely that something like that is swirling around in the crap 
between your ears, though.

By the way, I am not remotely surprised that you didn't 
understand what I said.

On Jun 25, 5:23 pm, John Griffin  wrote:
> BradGuth  wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 10:09 am, John Griffin 
> > wrote:
> >> BradGuth  wrote:
> >> > Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to the
> >> > Zion mindset.
>
> >> > Otherwise the planet Venus along with its 256 fold of
> >> > geothermal energy that's greater than what Earth has to
> >> > deal with, and as such geothermal energy of a newish
> >> > planetology is going away from Venus, is just too much of a
> >> > good thing.
>
> >> > Too bad that honest observationology is so gosh darn taboo/
> >> > nondisclosure rated to boot.
>
> >> > Too bad the the best of available science can't be shared
> >> > and shared alike.
>
> >> > Venus is ET doable (though not in the buff), and possibly
> >> > even survivable by locals that are simply evolved as
> >> > smarter and/or better adapted than us.
>
> >> > We're not being told the whole truth and nothing but the
> >> > truth about Venus.  Gee whiz, our Zion government has been
> >> > lying to us again (what a surprise).
>
> >> We'll see Venus straight overhead at midnight before we see
> >> you get a clue, CrazyBrad.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > You're saying that the regular laws of physics and of the best
> > available science doesn't apply to Venus, but otherwise
> > everything is perfectly doable about Mars or having walked
> > upon our moon?
>
> No.  I'm saying that we'll see Venus straight overhead at
> midnight before we see you get a clue, Crazy Brad.
>
> > Is there a new Zion fart of a reason for this skewed analogy
> > of essentially physics and science fuckology?
>
> I have no idea what a "Zion fart of a reason" might be.  It seems
> likely that something like that is swirling around in the crap
> between your ears, though.
>
> By the way, I am not remotely surprised that you didn't
> understand what I said.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Understand?

What's to understand about anything a Zion naysayer has to say?

Your kind is opposed to anything off-world, much less if it's the
least bit intelligent, of which in your case wouldn't take all that
much.
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth  wrote:

> On Jun 25, 5:23 pm, John Griffin 
> wrote: 
>> BradGuth  wrote:
>> > On Jun 25, 10:09 am, John Griffin
>> >  wrote:
>> >> BradGuth  wrote:
>> >> > Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to
>> >> > the Zion mindset.
>>
>> >> > Otherwise the planet Venus along with its 256 fold of
>> >> > geothermal energy that's greater than what Earth has to
>> >> > deal with, and as such geothermal energy of a newish
>> >> > planetology is going away from Venus, is just too much
>> >> > of a good thing.
>>
>> >> > Too bad that honest observationology is so gosh darn
>> >> > taboo/ nondisclosure rated to boot.
>>
>> >> > Too bad the the best of available science can't be
>> >> > shared and shared alike.
>>
>> >> > Venus is ET doable (though not in the buff), and
>> >> > possibly even survivable by locals that are simply
>> >> > evolved as smarter and/or better adapted than us.
>>
>> >> > We're not being told the whole truth and nothing but the
>> >> > truth about Venus.  Gee whiz, our Zion government has
>> >> > been lying to us again (what a surprise).
>>
>> >> We'll see Venus straight overhead at midnight before we
>> >> see you get a clue, CrazyBrad.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > You're saying that the regular laws of physics and of the
>> > best available science doesn't apply to Venus, but
>> > otherwise everything is perfectly doable about Mars or
>> > having walked upon our moon?
>>
>> No.  I'm saying that we'll see Venus straight overhead at
>> midnight before we see you get a clue, Crazy Brad.
>>
>> > Is there a new Zion fart of a reason for this skewed
>> > analogy of essentially physics and science fuckology?
>>
>> I have no idea what a "Zion fart of a reason" might be.  It
>> seems likely that something like that is swirling around in
>> the crap between your ears, though.
>>
>> By the way, I am not remotely surprised that you didn't
>> understand what I said.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> Understand?
> 
> What's to understand about anything a Zion naysayer has to
> say? 

Understanding is a part of the learning process, Brad.  Don't worry 
about it.  Your mind uses some kind of inefficacious substitutes 
for those things.

> Your kind is opposed to anything off-world, much less if it's
> the least bit intelligent, of which in your case wouldn't take
> all that much.

Cutting through the incoherence, I reckon you were trying to say 
that I have denied the possibility of life on other worlds.  That's 
the exact opposite of how I see that question. I believe there have 
been, are, and will be intelligent life forms all over the 
universe, but the nearest of them are more than four light years 
away.  Some of them sprouted, flourished and vanished in a fraction 
of a cosmic instant billions of years ago and more will do the same 
billions of years in the future. I just sure as hell don't believe 
in your aliens.

On Jun 26, 6:46 am, John Griffin  wrote:
> BradGuth  wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 5:23 pm, John Griffin 
> > wrote:
> >> BradGuth  wrote:
> >> > On Jun 25, 10:09 am, John Griffin
> >> >  wrote:
> >> >> BradGuth  wrote:
> >> >> > Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to
> >> >> > the Zion mindset.
>
> >> >> > Otherwise the planet Venus along with its 256 fold of
> >> >> > geothermal energy that's greater than what Earth has to
> >> >> > deal with, and as such geothermal energy of a newish
> >> >> > planetology is going away from Venus, is just too much
> >> >> > of a good thing.
>
> >> >> > Too bad that honest observationology is so gosh darn
> >> >> > taboo/ nondisclosure rated to boot.
>
> >> >> > Too bad the the best of available science can't be
> >> >> > shared and shared alike.
>
> >> >> > Venus is ET doable (though not in the buff), and
> >> >> > possibly even survivable by locals that are simply
> >> >> > evolved as smarter and/or better adapted than us.
>
> >> >> > We're not being told the whole truth and nothing but the
> >> >> > truth about Venus.  Gee whiz, our Zion government has
> >> >> > been lying to us again (what a surprise).
>
> >> >> We'll see Venus straight overhead at midnight before we
> >> >> see you get a clue, CrazyBrad.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> > You're saying that the regular laws of physics and of the
> >> > best available science doesn't apply to Venus, but
> >> > otherwise everything is perfectly doable about Mars or
> >> > having walked upon our moon?
>
> >> No.  I'm saying that we'll see Venus straight overhead at
> >> midnight before we see you get a clue, Crazy Brad.
>
> >> > Is there a new Zion fart of a reason for this skewed
> >> > analogy of essentially physics and science fuckology?
>
> >> I have no idea what a "Zion fart of a reason" might be.  It
> >> seems likely that something like that is swirling around in
> >> the crap between your ears, though.
>
> >> By the way, I am not remotely surprised that you didn't
> >> understand what I said.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Understand?
>
> > What's to understand about anything a Zion naysayer has to
> > say?
>
> Understanding is a part of the learning process, Brad.  Don't worry
> about it.  Your mind uses some kind of inefficacious substitutes
> for those things.
>
> > Your kind is opposed to anything off-world, much less if it's
> > the least bit intelligent, of which in your case wouldn't take
> > all that much.
>
> Cutting through the incoherence, I reckon you were trying to say
> that I have denied the possibility of life on other worlds.  That's
> the exact opposite of how I see that question. I believe there have
> been, are, and will be intelligent life forms all over the
> universe, but the nearest of them are more than four light years
> away.  Some of them sprouted, flourished and vanished in a fraction
> of a cosmic instant billions of years ago and more will do the same
> billions of years in the future. I just sure as hell don't believe
> in your aliens.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Your pro-ETism but naysay observationology and naysay deductive
reasoning is noted, but then how is it possible that any of those
other ETs that are likely older than us, are as a dumb and dumber than
us snookered and/or dumbfounded village idiots?

If supposedly our rad-hard astronauts using our hocus-pocus untested
fly-by-rocket landers can safely downrange land, drive and walk upon
our physically dark and of such a Van Allen electrostatic and
otherwise naked/anti-cathode moon environment, that which apparently
makes the likes of Venus invisible, then what's the big freaking deal
about other ETs walking or perhaps efficiently floating about within
their composite rigid airships while on Venus?

At least while on Venus there's unlimited local energy at their
disposal, more than sufficient h2o within them thar thick acidic
clouds, merely 90.5% gravity and a fairly nifty 65 kg/m3 worth of
buoyancy to boot, as well as nifty local raw elements forced to their
geothermally active surface, and otherwise nothing of bad radiation
getting through.

BTW, 4 ly at c/100 is merely a 400 year trek of a interstellar
commute.  c/100 seems perfectly doable, as otherwise we weren't always
so far away from such other potential solar systems and of their vast
Oort clouds of icy proto-moons, were we.

Every 100,000 some odd years this wussy little solar system of ours
gets closer to something that's very illuminating.  I wonder what that
other something is.

A nearby interstellar exchange of planets and icy proto-moons semms
perfectly doable, especially if we're nearby the departing solar
system as having recently been going red giant postal at the time.
-
Brad Guth

Zubrin's Mars sucks at just about everything, whereas Guth's Venus
rocks with local preheated fuel and energy to spare.

If ETs are not smart enough for making a go of it on Venus, then most
anywhere else is impossible (including Earth).

Green propellants that'll include a healthy feed stock of h2o2 are by
far in the best environmental position to obtaining the most clean
energy burn as derived from various fossil(including coal) and bio
fuels, with obviously little if any NOx contributions regardless of
how lean or rich of mixtures are utilized.

As for accommodating those pesky off-world adventures;  The carbon
monoxide (co/o2) impulse of merely 270 isn't all that impressive,
however, if your bulk raw substance of co2 is available along with all
of the necessary local energy for processing co2-->co/o2, as then it's
a total win-win for the old rocket engine or whatever ICE gipper.

If Robert Zubrin's Mars had 1% as much CO2 density as Venus,
especially at the higher ambient temperature as available on Venus,
whereas the co2-->co/o2 process would be absolutely impressive, and
even more so impressive if Zubrin didn't have to import a hefty and
spendy nuclear reactor for accommodating the required process energy.

Guess what, Venus offers geothermal vents of nearly 100,000 fold
(possibly a million fold) more CO2 density to work with than Mars, and
it's rather nicely geothermally preheated for processing, plus there's
unlimited local energy for whatever's the energy demanding task
associated with CO2-->CO/O2.  There's also a good amount of hot S8 to
deal with.

How many thousand tonnes of co and o2 per day or ever hour would you
naysay folks like?

How many spare/surplus teraWatts of renewable energy would you naysay
folks like?
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

Observationology isn't a dead science, in fact it's pretty much the
one and only science of interpretation that counts unless you're into
braillology.  Deductive science is exactly what it is, and as such it
gives us an honest future of hope that's most likely to transpire
unless we allow our faith-based swarm mindset take control, in which
case we get nothing but more of the same old faith-based crapolla and
WWIII to look forward to.

You folks should have always known, that ETs being smarter than us
doesn't mean they have space travel or even RF/microwave technology
nailed.

Surviving for perhaps as long or longer than us is more than enough to
qualify such ETs as being intelligent.

Just because they may not look like us or think like us is also not
the least bit of any count against their likely superior survival
intelligence.  Just because they take the fullest advantage of their
toasty environment is not a sign of lacking intelligence.  However,
because your swarm mindset is obstructive and/or stuck in naysayism
mode is a good sign of your having no intelligence whatsoever.

Of course, those interplanetary or especially interstellar worthy ETs
are likely going to be a whole lot smarter than us, and in more ways
advanced in their DNA or whatever else makes them tick.  And, just
because they're smarter and/or technologically advanced isn't
necessarily a bad thing for us having new goals and redirection,
instead of all the ongoing collateral damage and carnage of the
innocent that buys us nothing but future grief.

I'd thought we'd learned from Hitler and of his swarm of Zion friends
that bulluism doesn't work.  I guess we haven't quite figured that one
out.
-
Brad Guth



On Jun 26, 12:31 pm, BradGuth  wrote:
> Zubrin's Mars sucks at just about everything, whereas Guth's Venus
> rocks with local preheated fuel and energy to spare.
>
> If ETs are not smart enough for making a go of it on Venus, then most
> anywhere else is impossible (including Earth).
>
> Green propellants that'll include a healthy feed stock of h2o2 are by
> far in the best environmental position to obtaining the most clean
> energy burn as derived from various fossil(including coal) and bio
> fuels, with obviously little if any NOx contributions regardless of
> how lean or rich of mixtures are utilized.
>
> As for accommodating those pesky off-world adventures;  The carbon
> monoxide (co/o2) impulse of merely 270 isn't all that impressive,
> however, if your bulk raw substance of co2 is available along with all
> of the necessary local energy for processing co2-->co/o2, as then it's
> a total win-win for the old rocket engine or whatever ICE gipper.
>
> If Robert Zubrin's Mars had 1% as much CO2 density as Venus,
> especially at the higher ambient temperature as available on Venus,
> whereas the co2-->co/o2 process would be absolutely impressive, and
> even more so impressive if Zubrin didn't have to import a hefty and
> spendy nuclear reactor for accommodating the required process energy.
>
> Guess what, Venus offers geothermal vents of nearly 100,000 fold
> (possibly a million fold) more CO2 density to work with than Mars, and
> it's rather nicely geothermally preheated for processing, plus there's
> unlimited local energy for whatever's the energy demanding task
> associated with CO2-->CO/O2.  There's also a good amount of hot S8 to
> deal with.
>
> How many thousand tonnes of co and o2 per day or ever hour would you
> naysay folks like?
>
> How many spare/surplus teraWatts of renewable energy would you naysay
> folks like?
> -
> "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> -
> Brad Guth

Not that this anti-think-tank swarm of Usenet naysayism isn't bad
enough, but these topic avoidance or diverting folks just can't seem
to get enough out of lying to one another, as in rusemaster to
rusemanter of digging their individual bigotry in for the long haul.
No matters what, they just can't get an honest grip on the primary or
secondary worth of my topics, at least not without going postal.

As I've asked rather nicely;
What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less)?
and the one of "Locals/ETs making Venus happen, in spite of
ourselves"

I'm into sharing and otherwise looking for the best available science,
thus requesting equally weird or better ideas as to how we or ETs
might exist/coexist in places that seem a bit testy for accommodating
us humans in the buff.  How about yourself?

Are you folks per chance afraid that such ETs are likely smarter than
your collective swarm?

As far as I've been informed, there's absolutely nothing within the
regular laws of physics or of known planetology that'll stop a half
smart ET from making a go of it on Venus.  Terribly sorry about that.

However, perhaps you silly folks of the all-knowing Usenet naysayism
swarm are still deathly afraid of your own shadows, or of those MIB
that'll kick butt if you so much as let one unauthorised fart slip
out.

Is there an unwritten law about having to exclude evidence that rocks
your boat?
-
Brad Guth

The toasty conditions on Venus are those mostly influenced by the
geothermal forced environment.  The solar influx of what's adding
thermal insult to injury is obviously a factor, just not the primary
consideration of thermal trauma that we've been told about.

The quality image of what looks as though representing a rational
community of large complex structures, including a few surrounding
reservoirs, a bridge and tarmac isn't caused by the 36 look/pixel
composite radar image process, nor otherwise distorted into existence
by the application of a PhotoShop enlargement upon this specific area,
whereas all the other natural surroundings of what exist between and
nearby are looking exactly as though it should be an environment of
mostly hot rocks and active lava/mud flows along with all the expected
erosion patterns.

There's no question that Venus remains as too hot for us humans in the
buff, but that simply doesn't exclude what others may have adapted to
or having applied a degree of their Ovglove and thermal heat
exchanging technology in order to accommodate their species of other
life, that obviously we've not been allowed to see or touch or even so
much as openly ponder without taking serious flak from the all-knowing
swarm of Usenet naysayism.

The research that's needed is one of an open mindset, that'll help
turn weird ideas or deductive conjectures into the sorts of truth or
consequences that a better understanding about our nearby Venus
deserves.  Quoting phrases from the NASA bible/koran that's telling us
Venus is simply too hot or otherwise too nasty isn't helping one damn
bit.  Of telling us the Venus environment is primarly solar/greenhouse
driven is also not helping, especially when the regular laws of
physics and the best available science has been telling us otherwise
for more than the past decade.

Excluding the regular laws of physics and/or banishing the best
available evidence has been the mainstream status quo agenda that's
having been diverting our best resources and talents far away from
Venus, partly because of our NASA/Apollo fiasco where Venus was so
unusually stealth/invisible to those unfiltered Kodak moments, and
otherwise it's simply another faith-based form of swarm intelligence
that's all out butt naked in denial.  It seems certain faith-based
groups have everything at risk, and as such have and will continue to
do whatever it takes for keeping those lids of sequestered truth on
tight (their being in charge of our mainstream media and of whatever
else gets published into textbooks is priority No.1).  Their hiding
behind Atheism isn't working any better than having bet their bottom
dollar on certain warlords.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

Once again, Usenet is dead and the world gets to pay the same old
status quo price over and over, including Iraq, WWIII, WWIV and if
there's anything left for WWV (the final yellowcake war because most
all of fossil fuel has been expended and geothermal extractions are
getting out of control, along with our having 100 meters of extra
toasty ocean depth to deal with whatever's left of salty dry land to
fight over).

Venus being the next best thing to early or proto Earth seems almost
like too much of a good thing.  Too bad it's not ours for the taking.

There's spare/surplus local energy to burn (sort of speak), as in
teraWatts available in order to extract and/or process whatever.

There's no question that the active planetology of Venus is worth much
more to an intelligent ET than anything Earth as to offer.

The surface complex that's "guthvenus" isn't merely a collection of
weird (one of a kind) hot rocks as looking so downright rational and
intelligent worthy.

Venus is not outside the applied physics of what's easily accomplished
within the spec of existing technology.

It's many times easier to accomplish Venus than our moon.

The newish planetology of Venus is physics and science friendly.

Our NASA and even ESA are each working towards excluding all such
knowledge of whatever's intelligent about Venus, and Usenet has been
an extention of Zionism.  Go figure otherwise.
-
Brad Guth

Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to the Zion
mindset.

Otherwise the planet Venus along with its 256 fold of geothermal
energy that's greater than what Earth has to deal with, and as such
geothermal energy of a newish planetology is going away from Venus, is
just too much of a good thing.

Too bad that honest observationology is so gosh darn taboo/
nondisclosure rated to boot.

Too bad the the best of available science can't be shared and shared
alike.

Venus is ET doable (though not in the buff), and possibly even
survivable by locals that are simply evolved as smarter and/or better
adapted than us.

We're not being told the whole truth and nothing but the truth about
Venus.  Gee whiz, our Zion government has been lying to us again (what
a surprise).
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth  wrote:

> Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to the
> Zion mindset.
> 
> Otherwise the planet Venus along with its 256 fold of
> geothermal energy that's greater than what Earth has to deal
> with, and as such geothermal energy of a newish planetology is
> going away from Venus, is just too much of a good thing.
> 
> Too bad that honest observationology is so gosh darn taboo/
> nondisclosure rated to boot.
> 
> Too bad the the best of available science can't be shared and
> shared alike.
> 
> Venus is ET doable (though not in the buff), and possibly even
> survivable by locals that are simply evolved as smarter and/or
> better adapted than us.
> 
> We're not being told the whole truth and nothing but the truth
> about Venus.  Gee whiz, our Zion government has been lying to
> us again (what a surprise).

We'll see Venus straight overhead at midnight before we see you 
get a clue, Crazy Brad.

On Jun 25, 10:09 am, John Griffin  wrote:
> BradGuth  wrote:
> > Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to the
> > Zion mindset.
>
> > Otherwise the planet Venus along with its 256 fold of
> > geothermal energy that's greater than what Earth has to deal
> > with, and as such geothermal energy of a newish planetology is
> > going away from Venus, is just too much of a good thing.
>
> > Too bad that honest observationology is so gosh darn taboo/
> > nondisclosure rated to boot.
>
> > Too bad the the best of available science can't be shared and
> > shared alike.
>
> > Venus is ET doable (though not in the buff), and possibly even
> > survivable by locals that are simply evolved as smarter and/or
> > better adapted than us.
>
> > We're not being told the whole truth and nothing but the truth
> > about Venus.  Gee whiz, our Zion government has been lying to
> > us again (what a surprise).
>
> We'll see Venus straight overhead at midnight before we see you
> get a clue, CrazyBrad.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You're saying that the regular laws of physics and of the best
available science doesn't apply to Venus, but otherwise everything is
perfectly doable about Mars or having walked upon our moon?

Is there a new Zion fart of a reason for this skewed analogy of
essentially physics and science fuckology?
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth  wrote:

> On Jun 25, 10:09 am, John Griffin 
> wrote: 
>> BradGuth  wrote:
>> > Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to the
>> > Zion mindset.
>>
>> > Otherwise the planet Venus along with its 256 fold of
>> > geothermal energy that's greater than what Earth has to
>> > deal with, and as such geothermal energy of a newish
>> > planetology is going away from Venus, is just too much of a
>> > good thing. 
>>
>> > Too bad that honest observationology is so gosh darn taboo/
>> > nondisclosure rated to boot.
>>
>> > Too bad the the best of available science can't be shared
>> > and shared alike.
>>
>> > Venus is ET doable (though not in the buff), and possibly
>> > even survivable by locals that are simply evolved as
>> > smarter and/or better adapted than us.
>>
>> > We're not being told the whole truth and nothing but the
>> > truth about Venus.  Gee whiz, our Zion government has been
>> > lying to us again (what a surprise).
>>
>> We'll see Venus straight overhead at midnight before we see
>> you get a clue, CrazyBrad.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> You're saying that the regular laws of physics and of the best
> available science doesn't apply to Venus, but otherwise
> everything is perfectly doable about Mars or having walked
> upon our moon? 

No.  I'm saying that we'll see Venus straight overhead at 
midnight before we see you get a clue, Crazy Brad.

> Is there a new Zion fart of a reason for this skewed analogy
> of essentially physics and science fuckology?

I have no idea what a "Zion fart of a reason" might be.  It seems 
likely that something like that is swirling around in the crap 
between your ears, though.

By the way, I am not remotely surprised that you didn't 
understand what I said.

On Jun 25, 5:23 pm, John Griffin  wrote:
> BradGuth  wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 10:09 am, John Griffin 
> > wrote:
> >> BradGuth  wrote:
> >> > Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to the
> >> > Zion mindset.
>
> >> > Otherwise the planet Venus along with its 256 fold of
> >> > geothermal energy that's greater than what Earth has to
> >> > deal with, and as such geothermal energy of a newish
> >> > planetology is going away from Venus, is just too much of a
> >> > good thing.
>
> >> > Too bad that honest observationology is so gosh darn taboo/
> >> > nondisclosure rated to boot.
>
> >> > Too bad the the best of available science can't be shared
> >> > and shared alike.
>
> >> > Venus is ET doable (though not in the buff), and possibly
> >> > even survivable by locals that are simply evolved as
> >> > smarter and/or better adapted than us.
>
> >> > We're not being told the whole truth and nothing but the
> >> > truth about Venus.  Gee whiz, our Zion government has been
> >> > lying to us again (what a surprise).
>
> >> We'll see Venus straight overhead at midnight before we see
> >> you get a clue, CrazyBrad.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > You're saying that the regular laws of physics and of the best
> > available science doesn't apply to Venus, but otherwise
> > everything is perfectly doable about Mars or having walked
> > upon our moon?
>
> No.  I'm saying that we'll see Venus straight overhead at
> midnight before we see you get a clue, Crazy Brad.
>
> > Is there a new Zion fart of a reason for this skewed analogy
> > of essentially physics and science fuckology?
>
> I have no idea what a "Zion fart of a reason" might be.  It seems
> likely that something like that is swirling around in the crap
> between your ears, though.
>
> By the way, I am not remotely surprised that you didn't
> understand what I said.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Understand?

What's to understand about anything a Zion naysayer has to say?

Your kind is opposed to anything off-world, much less if it's the
least bit intelligent, of which in your case wouldn't take all that
much.
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth  wrote:

> On Jun 25, 5:23 pm, John Griffin 
> wrote: 
>> BradGuth  wrote:
>> > On Jun 25, 10:09 am, John Griffin
>> >  wrote:
>> >> BradGuth  wrote:
>> >> > Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to
>> >> > the Zion mindset.
>>
>> >> > Otherwise the planet Venus along with its 256 fold of
>> >> > geothermal energy that's greater than what Earth has to
>> >> > deal with, and as such geothermal energy of a newish
>> >> > planetology is going away from Venus, is just too much
>> >> > of a good thing.
>>
>> >> > Too bad that honest observationology is so gosh darn
>> >> > taboo/ nondisclosure rated to boot.
>>
>> >> > Too bad the the best of available science can't be
>> >> > shared and shared alike.
>>
>> >> > Venus is ET doable (though not in the buff), and
>> >> > possibly even survivable by locals that are simply
>> >> > evolved as smarter and/or better adapted than us.
>>
>> >> > We're not being told the whole truth and nothing but the
>> >> > truth about Venus.  Gee whiz, our Zion government has
>> >> > been lying to us again (what a surprise).
>>
>> >> We'll see Venus straight overhead at midnight before we
>> >> see you get a clue, CrazyBrad.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > You're saying that the regular laws of physics and of the
>> > best available science doesn't apply to Venus, but
>> > otherwise everything is perfectly doable about Mars or
>> > having walked upon our moon?
>>
>> No.  I'm saying that we'll see Venus straight overhead at
>> midnight before we see you get a clue, Crazy Brad.
>>
>> > Is there a new Zion fart of a reason for this skewed
>> > analogy of essentially physics and science fuckology?
>>
>> I have no idea what a "Zion fart of a reason" might be.  It
>> seems likely that something like that is swirling around in
>> the crap between your ears, though.
>>
>> By the way, I am not remotely surprised that you didn't
>> understand what I said.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> Understand?
> 
> What's to understand about anything a Zion naysayer has to
> say? 

Understanding is a part of the learning process, Brad.  Don't worry 
about it.  Your mind uses some kind of inefficacious substitutes 
for those things.

> Your kind is opposed to anything off-world, much less if it's
> the least bit intelligent, of which in your case wouldn't take
> all that much.

Cutting through the incoherence, I reckon you were trying to say 
that I have denied the possibility of life on other worlds.  That's 
the exact opposite of how I see that question. I believe there have 
been, are, and will be intelligent life forms all over the 
universe, but the nearest of them are more than four light years 
away.  Some of them sprouted, flourished and vanished in a fraction 
of a cosmic instant billions of years ago and more will do the same 
billions of years in the future. I just sure as hell don't believe 
in your aliens.

On Jun 26, 6:46 am, John Griffin  wrote:
> BradGuth  wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 5:23 pm, John Griffin 
> > wrote:
> >> BradGuth  wrote:
> >> > On Jun 25, 10:09 am, John Griffin
> >> >  wrote:
> >> >> BradGuth  wrote:
> >> >> > Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to
> >> >> > the Zion mindset.
>
> >> >> > Otherwise the planet Venus along with its 256 fold of
> >> >> > geothermal energy that's greater than what Earth has to
> >> >> > deal with, and as such geothermal energy of a newish
> >> >> > planetology is going away from Venus, is just too much
> >> >> > of a good thing.
>
> >> >> > Too bad that honest observationology is so gosh darn
> >> >> > taboo/ nondisclosure rated to boot.
>
> >> >> > Too bad the the best of available science can't be
> >> >> > shared and shared alike.
>
> >> >> > Venus is ET doable (though not in the buff), and
> >> >> > possibly even survivable by locals that are simply
> >> >> > evolved as smarter and/or better adapted than us.
>
> >> >> > We're not being told the whole truth and nothing but the
> >> >> > truth about Venus.  Gee whiz, our Zion government has
> >> >> > been lying to us again (what a surprise).
>
> >> >> We'll see Venus straight overhead at midnight before we
> >> >> see you get a clue, CrazyBrad.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> > You're saying that the regular laws of physics and of the
> >> > best available science doesn't apply to Venus, but
> >> > otherwise everything is perfectly doable about Mars or
> >> > having walked upon our moon?
>
> >> No.  I'm saying that we'll see Venus straight overhead at
> >> midnight before we see you get a clue, Crazy Brad.
>
> >> > Is there a new Zion fart of a reason for this skewed
> >> > analogy of essentially physics and science fuckology?
>
> >> I have no idea what a "Zion fart of a reason" might be.  It
> >> seems likely that something like that is swirling around in
> >> the crap between your ears, though.
>
> >> By the way, I am not remotely surprised that you didn't
> >> understand what I said.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Understand?
>
> > What's to understand about anything a Zion naysayer has to
> > say?
>
> Understanding is a part of the learning process, Brad.  Don't worry
> about it.  Your mind uses some kind of inefficacious substitutes
> for those things.
>
> > Your kind is opposed to anything off-world, much less if it's
> > the least bit intelligent, of which in your case wouldn't take
> > all that much.
>
> Cutting through the incoherence, I reckon you were trying to say
> that I have denied the possibility of life on other worlds.  That's
> the exact opposite of how I see that question. I believe there have
> been, are, and will be intelligent life forms all over the
> universe, but the nearest of them are more than four light years
> away.  Some of them sprouted, flourished and vanished in a fraction
> of a cosmic instant billions of years ago and more will do the same
> billions of years in the future. I just sure as hell don't believe
> in your aliens.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Your pro-ETism but naysay observationology and naysay deductive
reasoning is noted, but then how is it possible that any of those
other ETs that are likely older than us, are as a dumb and dumber than
us snookered and/or dumbfounded village idiots?

If supposedly our rad-hard astronauts using our hocus-pocus untested
fly-by-rocket landers can safely downrange land, drive and walk upon
our physically dark and of such a Van Allen electrostatic and
otherwise naked/anti-cathode moon environment, that which apparently
makes the likes of Venus invisible, then what's the big freaking deal
about other ETs walking or perhaps efficiently floating about within
their composite rigid airships while on Venus?

At least while on Venus there's unlimited local energy at their
disposal, more than sufficient h2o within them thar thick acidic
clouds, merely 90.5% gravity and a fairly nifty 65 kg/m3 worth of
buoyancy to boot, as well as nifty local raw elements forced to their
geothermally active surface, and otherwise nothing of bad radiation
getting through.

BTW, 4 ly at c/100 is merely a 400 year trek of a interstellar
commute.  c/100 seems perfectly doable, as otherwise we weren't always
so far away from such other potential solar systems and of their vast
Oort clouds of icy proto-moons, were we.

Every 100,000 some odd years this wussy little solar system of ours
gets closer to something that's very illuminating.  I wonder what that
other something is.

A nearby interstellar exchange of planets and icy proto-moons semms
perfectly doable, especially if we're nearby the departing solar
system as having recently been going red giant postal at the time.
-
Brad Guth

Zubrin's Mars sucks at just about everything, whereas Guth's Venus
rocks with local preheated fuel and energy to spare.

If ETs are not smart enough for making a go of it on Venus, then most
anywhere else is impossible (including Earth).

Green propellants that'll include a healthy feed stock of h2o2 are by
far in the best environmental position to obtaining the most clean
energy burn as derived from various fossil(including coal) and bio
fuels, with obviously little if any NOx contributions regardless of
how lean or rich of mixtures are utilized.

As for accommodating those pesky off-world adventures;  The carbon
monoxide (co/o2) impulse of merely 270 isn't all that impressive,
however, if your bulk raw substance of co2 is available along with all
of the necessary local energy for processing co2-->co/o2, as then it's
a total win-win for the old rocket engine or whatever ICE gipper.

If Robert Zubrin's Mars had 1% as much CO2 density as Venus,
especially at the higher ambient temperature as available on Venus,
whereas the co2-->co/o2 process would be absolutely impressive, and
even more so impressive if Zubrin didn't have to import a hefty and
spendy nuclear reactor for accommodating the required process energy.

Guess what, Venus offers geothermal vents of nearly 100,000 fold
(possibly a million fold) more CO2 density to work with than Mars, and
it's rather nicely geothermally preheated for processing, plus there's
unlimited local energy for whatever's the energy demanding task
associated with CO2-->CO/O2.  There's also a good amount of hot S8 to
deal with.

How many thousand tonnes of co and o2 per day or ever hour would you
naysay folks like?

How many spare/surplus teraWatts of renewable energy would you naysay
folks like?
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

Observationology isn't a dead science, in fact it's pretty much the
one and only science of interpretation that counts unless you're into
braillology.  Deductive science is exactly what it is, and as such it
gives us an honest future of hope that's most likely to transpire
unless we allow our faith-based swarm mindset take control, in which
case we get nothing but more of the same old faith-based crapolla and
WWIII to look forward to.

You folks should have always known, that ETs being smarter than us
doesn't mean they have space travel or even RF/microwave technology
nailed.

Surviving for perhaps as long or longer than us is more than enough to
qualify such ETs as being intelligent.

Just because they may not look like us or think like us is also not
the least bit of any count against their likely superior survival
intelligence.  Just because they take the fullest advantage of their
toasty environment is not a sign of lacking intelligence.  However,
because your swarm mindset is obstructive and/or stuck in naysayism
mode is a good sign of your having no intelligence whatsoever.

Of course, those interplanetary or especially interstellar worthy ETs
are likely going to be a whole lot smarter than us, and in more ways
advanced in their DNA or whatever else makes them tick.  And, just
because they're smarter and/or technologically advanced isn't
necessarily a bad thing for us having new goals and redirection,
instead of all the ongoing collateral damage and carnage of the
innocent that buys us nothing but future grief.

I'd thought we'd learned from Hitler and of his swarm of Zion friends
that bulluism doesn't work.  I guess we haven't quite figured that one
out.
-
Brad Guth



On Jun 26, 12:31 pm, BradGuth  wrote:
> Zubrin's Mars sucks at just about everything, whereas Guth's Venus
> rocks with local preheated fuel and energy to spare.
>
> If ETs are not smart enough for making a go of it on Venus, then most
> anywhere else is impossible (including Earth).
>
> Green propellants that'll include a healthy feed stock of h2o2 are by
> far in the best environmental position to obtaining the most clean
> energy burn as derived from various fossil(including coal) and bio
> fuels, with obviously little if any NOx contributions regardless of
> how lean or rich of mixtures are utilized.
>
> As for accommodating those pesky off-world adventures;  The carbon
> monoxide (co/o2) impulse of merely 270 isn't all that impressive,
> however, if your bulk raw substance of co2 is available along with all
> of the necessary local energy for processing co2-->co/o2, as then it's
> a total win-win for the old rocket engine or whatever ICE gipper.
>
> If Robert Zubrin's Mars had 1% as much CO2 density as Venus,
> especially at the higher ambient temperature as available on Venus,
> whereas the co2-->co/o2 process would be absolutely impressive, and
> even more so impressive if Zubrin didn't have to import a hefty and
> spendy nuclear reactor for accommodating the required process energy.
>
> Guess what, Venus offers geothermal vents of nearly 100,000 fold
> (possibly a million fold) more CO2 density to work with than Mars, and
> it's rather nicely geothermally preheated for processing, plus there's
> unlimited local energy for whatever's the energy demanding task
> associated with CO2-->CO/O2.  There's also a good amount of hot S8 to
> deal with.
>
> How many thousand tonnes of co and o2 per day or ever hour would you
> naysay folks like?
>
> How many spare/surplus teraWatts of renewable energy would you naysay
> folks like?
> -
> "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> -
> Brad Guth

Not that this anti-think-tank swarm of Usenet naysayism isn't bad
enough, but these topic avoidance or diverting folks just can't seem
to get enough out of lying to one another, as in rusemaster to
rusemanter of digging their individual bigotry in for the long haul.
No matters what, they just can't get an honest grip on the primary or
secondary worth of my topics, at least not without going postal.

As I've asked rather nicely;
What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less)?
and the one of "Locals/ETs making Venus happen, in spite of
ourselves"

I'm into sharing and otherwise looking for the best available science,
thus requesting equally weird or better ideas as to how we or ETs
might exist/coexist in places that seem a bit testy for accommodating
us humans in the buff.  How about yourself?

Are you folks per chance afraid that such ETs are likely smarter than
your collective swarm?

As far as I've been informed, there's absolutely nothing within the
regular laws of physics or of known planetology that'll stop a half
smart ET from making a go of it on Venus.  Terribly sorry about that.

However, perhaps you silly folks of the all-knowing Usenet naysayism
swarm are still deathly afraid of your own shadows, or of those MIB
that'll kick butt if you so much as let one unauthorised fart slip
out.

Is there an unwritten law about having to exclude evidence that rocks
your boat?
-
Brad Guth

The toasty conditions on Venus are those mostly influenced by the
geothermal forced environment.  The solar influx of what's adding
thermal insult to injury is obviously a factor, just not the primary
consideration of thermal trauma that we've been told about.

The quality image of what looks as though representing a rational
community of large complex structures, including a few surrounding
reservoirs, a bridge and tarmac isn't caused by the 36 look/pixel
composite radar image process, nor otherwise distorted into existence
by the application of a PhotoShop enlargement upon this specific area,
whereas all the other natural surroundings of what exist between and
nearby are looking exactly as though it should be an environment of
mostly hot rocks and active lava/mud flows along with all the expected
erosion patterns.

There's no question that Venus remains as too hot for us humans in the
buff, but that simply doesn't exclude what others may have adapted to
or having applied a degree of their Ovglove and thermal heat
exchanging technology in order to accommodate their species of other
life, that obviously we've not been allowed to see or touch or even so
much as openly ponder without taking serious flak from the all-knowing
swarm of Usenet naysayism.

The research that's needed is one of an open mindset, that'll help
turn weird ideas or deductive conjectures into the sorts of truth or
consequences that a better understanding about our nearby Venus
deserves.  Quoting phrases from the NASA bible/koran that's telling us
Venus is simply too hot or otherwise too nasty isn't helping one damn
bit.  Of telling us the Venus environment is primarly solar/greenhouse
driven is also not helping, especially when the regular laws of
physics and the best available science has been telling us otherwise
for more than the past decade.

Excluding the regular laws of physics and/or banishing the best
available evidence has been the mainstream status quo agenda that's
having been diverting our best resources and talents far away from
Venus, partly because of our NASA/Apollo fiasco where Venus was so
unusually stealth/invisible to those unfiltered Kodak moments, and
otherwise it's simply another faith-based form of swarm intelligence
that's all out butt naked in denial.  It seems certain faith-based
groups have everything at risk, and as such have and will continue to
do whatever it takes for keeping those lids of sequestered truth on
tight (their being in charge of our mainstream media and of whatever
else gets published into textbooks is priority No.1).  Their hiding
behind Atheism isn't working any better than having bet their bottom
dollar on certain warlords.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

Once again, Usenet is dead and the world gets to pay the same old
status quo price over and over, including Iraq, WWIII, WWIV and if
there's anything left for WWV (the final yellowcake war because most
all of fossil fuel has been expended and geothermal extractions are
getting out of control, along with our having 100 meters of extra
toasty ocean depth to deal with whatever's left of salty dry land to
fight over).

Venus being the next best thing to early or proto Earth seems almost
like too much of a good thing.  Too bad it's not ours for the taking.

There's spare/surplus local energy to burn (sort of speak), as in
teraWatts available in order to extract and/or process whatever.

There's no question that the active planetology of Venus is worth much
more to an intelligent ET than anything Earth as to offer.

The surface complex that's "guthvenus" isn't merely a collection of
weird (one of a kind) hot rocks as looking so downright rational and
intelligent worthy.

Venus is not outside the applied physics of what's easily accomplished
within the spec of existing technology.

It's many times easier to accomplish Venus than our moon.

The newish planetology of Venus is physics and science friendly.

Our NASA and even ESA are each working towards excluding all such
knowledge of whatever's intelligent about Venus, and Usenet has been
an extention of Zionism.  Go figure otherwise.
-
Brad Guth

Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to the Zion
mindset.

Otherwise the planet Venus along with its 256 fold of geothermal
energy that's greater than what Earth has to deal with, and as such
geothermal energy of a newish planetology is going away from Venus, is
just too much of a good thing.

Too bad that honest observationology is so gosh darn taboo/
nondisclosure rated to boot.

Too bad the the best of available science can't be shared and shared
alike.

Venus is ET doable (though not in the buff), and possibly even
survivable by locals that are simply evolved as smarter and/or better
adapted than us.

We're not being told the whole truth and nothing but the truth about
Venus.  Gee whiz, our Zion government has been lying to us again (what
a surprise).
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth  wrote:

> Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to the
> Zion mindset.
> 
> Otherwise the planet Venus along with its 256 fold of
> geothermal energy that's greater than what Earth has to deal
> with, and as such geothermal energy of a newish planetology is
> going away from Venus, is just too much of a good thing.
> 
> Too bad that honest observationology is so gosh darn taboo/
> nondisclosure rated to boot.
> 
> Too bad the the best of available science can't be shared and
> shared alike.
> 
> Venus is ET doable (though not in the buff), and possibly even
> survivable by locals that are simply evolved as smarter and/or
> better adapted than us.
> 
> We're not being told the whole truth and nothing but the truth
> about Venus.  Gee whiz, our Zion government has been lying to
> us again (what a surprise).

We'll see Venus straight overhead at midnight before we see you 
get a clue, Crazy Brad.

On Jun 25, 10:09 am, John Griffin  wrote:
> BradGuth  wrote:
> > Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to the
> > Zion mindset.
>
> > Otherwise the planet Venus along with its 256 fold of
> > geothermal energy that's greater than what Earth has to deal
> > with, and as such geothermal energy of a newish planetology is
> > going away from Venus, is just too much of a good thing.
>
> > Too bad that honest observationology is so gosh darn taboo/
> > nondisclosure rated to boot.
>
> > Too bad the the best of available science can't be shared and
> > shared alike.
>
> > Venus is ET doable (though not in the buff), and possibly even
> > survivable by locals that are simply evolved as smarter and/or
> > better adapted than us.
>
> > We're not being told the whole truth and nothing but the truth
> > about Venus.  Gee whiz, our Zion government has been lying to
> > us again (what a surprise).
>
> We'll see Venus straight overhead at midnight before we see you
> get a clue, CrazyBrad.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You're saying that the regular laws of physics and of the best
available science doesn't apply to Venus, but otherwise everything is
perfectly doable about Mars or having walked upon our moon?

Is there a new Zion fart of a reason for this skewed analogy of
essentially physics and science fuckology?
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth  wrote:

> On Jun 25, 10:09 am, John Griffin 
> wrote: 
>> BradGuth  wrote:
>> > Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to the
>> > Zion mindset.
>>
>> > Otherwise the planet Venus along with its 256 fold of
>> > geothermal energy that's greater than what Earth has to
>> > deal with, and as such geothermal energy of a newish
>> > planetology is going away from Venus, is just too much of a
>> > good thing. 
>>
>> > Too bad that honest observationology is so gosh darn taboo/
>> > nondisclosure rated to boot.
>>
>> > Too bad the the best of available science can't be shared
>> > and shared alike.
>>
>> > Venus is ET doable (though not in the buff), and possibly
>> > even survivable by locals that are simply evolved as
>> > smarter and/or better adapted than us.
>>
>> > We're not being told the whole truth and nothing but the
>> > truth about Venus.  Gee whiz, our Zion government has been
>> > lying to us again (what a surprise).
>>
>> We'll see Venus straight overhead at midnight before we see
>> you get a clue, CrazyBrad.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> You're saying that the regular laws of physics and of the best
> available science doesn't apply to Venus, but otherwise
> everything is perfectly doable about Mars or having walked
> upon our moon? 

No.  I'm saying that we'll see Venus straight overhead at 
midnight before we see you get a clue, Crazy Brad.

> Is there a new Zion fart of a reason for this skewed analogy
> of essentially physics and science fuckology?

I have no idea what a "Zion fart of a reason" might be.  It seems 
likely that something like that is swirling around in the crap 
between your ears, though.

By the way, I am not remotely surprised that you didn't 
understand what I said.

On Jun 25, 5:23 pm, John Griffin  wrote:
> BradGuth  wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 10:09 am, John Griffin 
> > wrote:
> >> BradGuth  wrote:
> >> > Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to the
> >> > Zion mindset.
>
> >> > Otherwise the planet Venus along with its 256 fold of
> >> > geothermal energy that's greater than what Earth has to
> >> > deal with, and as such geothermal energy of a newish
> >> > planetology is going away from Venus, is just too much of a
> >> > good thing.
>
> >> > Too bad that honest observationology is so gosh darn taboo/
> >> > nondisclosure rated to boot.
>
> >> > Too bad the the best of available science can't be shared
> >> > and shared alike.
>
> >> > Venus is ET doable (though not in the buff), and possibly
> >> > even survivable by locals that are simply evolved as
> >> > smarter and/or better adapted than us.
>
> >> > We're not being told the whole truth and nothing but the
> >> > truth about Venus.  Gee whiz, our Zion government has been
> >> > lying to us again (what a surprise).
>
> >> We'll see Venus straight overhead at midnight before we see
> >> you get a clue, CrazyBrad.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > You're saying that the regular laws of physics and of the best
> > available science doesn't apply to Venus, but otherwise
> > everything is perfectly doable about Mars or having walked
> > upon our moon?
>
> No.  I'm saying that we'll see Venus straight overhead at
> midnight before we see you get a clue, Crazy Brad.
>
> > Is there a new Zion fart of a reason for this skewed analogy
> > of essentially physics and science fuckology?
>
> I have no idea what a "Zion fart of a reason" might be.  It seems
> likely that something like that is swirling around in the crap
> between your ears, though.
>
> By the way, I am not remotely surprised that you didn't
> understand what I said.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Understand?

What's to understand about anything a Zion naysayer has to say?

Your kind is opposed to anything off-world, much less if it's the
least bit intelligent, of which in your case wouldn't take all that
much.
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth  wrote:

> On Jun 25, 5:23 pm, John Griffin 
> wrote: 
>> BradGuth  wrote:
>> > On Jun 25, 10:09 am, John Griffin
>> >  wrote:
>> >> BradGuth  wrote:
>> >> > Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to
>> >> > the Zion mindset.
>>
>> >> > Otherwise the planet Venus along with its 256 fold of
>> >> > geothermal energy that's greater than what Earth has to
>> >> > deal with, and as such geothermal energy of a newish
>> >> > planetology is going away from Venus, is just too much
>> >> > of a good thing.
>>
>> >> > Too bad that honest observationology is so gosh darn
>> >> > taboo/ nondisclosure rated to boot.
>>
>> >> > Too bad the the best of available science can't be
>> >> > shared and shared alike.
>>
>> >> > Venus is ET doable (though not in the buff), and
>> >> > possibly even survivable by locals that are simply
>> >> > evolved as smarter and/or better adapted than us.
>>
>> >> > We're not being told the whole truth and nothing but the
>> >> > truth about Venus.  Gee whiz, our Zion government has
>> >> > been lying to us again (what a surprise).
>>
>> >> We'll see Venus straight overhead at midnight before we
>> >> see you get a clue, CrazyBrad.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > You're saying that the regular laws of physics and of the
>> > best available science doesn't apply to Venus, but
>> > otherwise everything is perfectly doable about Mars or
>> > having walked upon our moon?
>>
>> No.  I'm saying that we'll see Venus straight overhead at
>> midnight before we see you get a clue, Crazy Brad.
>>
>> > Is there a new Zion fart of a reason for this skewed
>> > analogy of essentially physics and science fuckology?
>>
>> I have no idea what a "Zion fart of a reason" might be.  It
>> seems likely that something like that is swirling around in
>> the crap between your ears, though.
>>
>> By the way, I am not remotely surprised that you didn't
>> understand what I said.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> Understand?
> 
> What's to understand about anything a Zion naysayer has to
> say? 

Understanding is a part of the learning process, Brad.  Don't worry 
about it.  Your mind uses some kind of inefficacious substitutes 
for those things.

> Your kind is opposed to anything off-world, much less if it's
> the least bit intelligent, of which in your case wouldn't take
> all that much.

Cutting through the incoherence, I reckon you were trying to say 
that I have denied the possibility of life on other worlds.  That's 
the exact opposite of how I see that question. I believe there have 
been, are, and will be intelligent life forms all over the 
universe, but the nearest of them are more than four light years 
away.  Some of them sprouted, flourished and vanished in a fraction 
of a cosmic instant billions of years ago and more will do the same 
billions of years in the future. I just sure as hell don't believe 
in your aliens.

On Jun 26, 6:46 am, John Griffin  wrote:
> BradGuth  wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 5:23 pm, John Griffin 
> > wrote:
> >> BradGuth  wrote:
> >> > On Jun 25, 10:09 am, John Griffin
> >> >  wrote:
> >> >> BradGuth  wrote:
> >> >> > Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to
> >> >> > the Zion mindset.
>
> >> >> > Otherwise the planet Venus along with its 256 fold of
> >> >> > geothermal energy that's greater than what Earth has to
> >> >> > deal with, and as such geothermal energy of a newish
> >> >> > planetology is going away from Venus, is just too much
> >> >> > of a good thing.
>
> >> >> > Too bad that honest observationology is so gosh darn
> >> >> > taboo/ nondisclosure rated to boot.
>
> >> >> > Too bad the the best of available science can't be
> >> >> > shared and shared alike.
>
> >> >> > Venus is ET doable (though not in the buff), and
> >> >> > possibly even survivable by locals that are simply
> >> >> > evolved as smarter and/or better adapted than us.
>
> >> >> > We're not being told the whole truth and nothing but the
> >> >> > truth about Venus.  Gee whiz, our Zion government has
> >> >> > been lying to us again (what a surprise).
>
> >> >> We'll see Venus straight overhead at midnight before we
> >> >> see you get a clue, CrazyBrad.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> > You're saying that the regular laws of physics and of the
> >> > best available science doesn't apply to Venus, but
> >> > otherwise everything is perfectly doable about Mars or
> >> > having walked upon our moon?
>
> >> No.  I'm saying that we'll see Venus straight overhead at
> >> midnight before we see you get a clue, Crazy Brad.
>
> >> > Is there a new Zion fart of a reason for this skewed
> >> > analogy of essentially physics and science fuckology?
>
> >> I have no idea what a "Zion fart of a reason" might be.  It
> >> seems likely that something like that is swirling around in
> >> the crap between your ears, though.
>
> >> By the way, I am not remotely surprised that you didn't
> >> understand what I said.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Understand?
>
> > What's to understand about anything a Zion naysayer has to
> > say?
>
> Understanding is a part of the learning process, Brad.  Don't worry
> about it.  Your mind uses some kind of inefficacious substitutes
> for those things.
>
> > Your kind is opposed to anything off-world, much less if it's
> > the least bit intelligent, of which in your case wouldn't take
> > all that much.
>
> Cutting through the incoherence, I reckon you were trying to say
> that I have denied the possibility of life on other worlds.  That's
> the exact opposite of how I see that question. I believe there have
> been, are, and will be intelligent life forms all over the
> universe, but the nearest of them are more than four light years
> away.  Some of them sprouted, flourished and vanished in a fraction
> of a cosmic instant billions of years ago and more will do the same
> billions of years in the future. I just sure as hell don't believe
> in your aliens.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Your pro-ETism but naysay observationology and naysay deductive
reasoning is noted, but then how is it possible that any of those
other ETs that are likely older than us, are as a dumb and dumber than
us snookered and/or dumbfounded village idiots?

If supposedly our rad-hard astronauts using our hocus-pocus untested
fly-by-rocket landers can safely downrange land, drive and walk upon
our physically dark and of such a Van Allen electrostatic and
otherwise naked/anti-cathode moon environment, that which apparently
makes the likes of Venus invisible, then what's the big freaking deal
about other ETs walking or perhaps efficiently floating about within
their composite rigid airships while on Venus?

At least while on Venus there's unlimited local energy at their
disposal, more than sufficient h2o within them thar thick acidic
clouds, merely 90.5% gravity and a fairly nifty 65 kg/m3 worth of
buoyancy to boot, as well as nifty local raw elements forced to their
geothermally active surface, and otherwise nothing of bad radiation
getting through.

BTW, 4 ly at c/100 is merely a 400 year trek of a interstellar
commute.  c/100 seems perfectly doable, as otherwise we weren't always
so far away from such other potential solar systems and of their vast
Oort clouds of icy proto-moons, were we.

Every 100,000 some odd years this wussy little solar system of ours
gets closer to something that's very illuminating.  I wonder what that
other something is.

A nearby interstellar exchange of planets and icy proto-moons semms
perfectly doable, especially if we're nearby the departing solar
system as having recently been going red giant postal at the time.
-
Brad Guth

Zubrin's Mars sucks at just about everything, whereas Guth's Venus
rocks with local preheated fuel and energy to spare.

If ETs are not smart enough for making a go of it on Venus, then most
anywhere else is impossible (including Earth).

Green propellants that'll include a healthy feed stock of h2o2 are by
far in the best environmental position to obtaining the most clean
energy burn as derived from various fossil(including coal) and bio
fuels, with obviously little if any NOx contributions regardless of
how lean or rich of mixtures are utilized.

As for accommodating those pesky off-world adventures;  The carbon
monoxide (co/o2) impulse of merely 270 isn't all that impressive,
however, if your bulk raw substance of co2 is available along with all
of the necessary local energy for processing co2-->co/o2, as then it's
a total win-win for the old rocket engine or whatever ICE gipper.

If Robert Zubrin's Mars had 1% as much CO2 density as Venus,
especially at the higher ambient temperature as available on Venus,
whereas the co2-->co/o2 process would be absolutely impressive, and
even more so impressive if Zubrin didn't have to import a hefty and
spendy nuclear reactor for accommodating the required process energy.

Guess what, Venus offers geothermal vents of nearly 100,000 fold
(possibly a million fold) more CO2 density to work with than Mars, and
it's rather nicely geothermally preheated for processing, plus there's
unlimited local energy for whatever's the energy demanding task
associated with CO2-->CO/O2.  There's also a good amount of hot S8 to
deal with.

How many thousand tonnes of co and o2 per day or ever hour would you
naysay folks like?

How many spare/surplus teraWatts of renewable energy would you naysay
folks like?
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

Observationology isn't a dead science, in fact it's pretty much the
one and only science of interpretation that counts unless you're into
braillology.  Deductive science is exactly what it is, and as such it
gives us an honest future of hope that's most likely to transpire
unless we allow our faith-based swarm mindset take control, in which
case we get nothing but more of the same old faith-based crapolla and
WWIII to look forward to.

You folks should have always known, that ETs being smarter than us
doesn't mean they have space travel or even RF/microwave technology
nailed.

Surviving for perhaps as long or longer than us is more than enough to
qualify such ETs as being intelligent.

Just because they may not look like us or think like us is also not
the least bit of any count against their likely superior survival
intelligence.  Just because they take the fullest advantage of their
toasty environment is not a sign of lacking intelligence.  However,
because your swarm mindset is obstructive and/or stuck in naysayism
mode is a good sign of your having no intelligence whatsoever.

Of course, those interplanetary or especially interstellar worthy ETs
are likely going to be a whole lot smarter than us, and in more ways
advanced in their DNA or whatever else makes them tick.  And, just
because they're smarter and/or technologically advanced isn't
necessarily a bad thing for us having new goals and redirection,
instead of all the ongoing collateral damage and carnage of the
innocent that buys us nothing but future grief.

I'd thought we'd learned from Hitler and of his swarm of Zion friends
that bulluism doesn't work.  I guess we haven't quite figured that one
out.
-
Brad Guth



On Jun 26, 12:31 pm, BradGuth  wrote:
> Zubrin's Mars sucks at just about everything, whereas Guth's Venus
> rocks with local preheated fuel and energy to spare.
>
> If ETs are not smart enough for making a go of it on Venus, then most
> anywhere else is impossible (including Earth).
>
> Green propellants that'll include a healthy feed stock of h2o2 are by
> far in the best environmental position to obtaining the most clean
> energy burn as derived from various fossil(including coal) and bio
> fuels, with obviously little if any NOx contributions regardless of
> how lean or rich of mixtures are utilized.
>
> As for accommodating those pesky off-world adventures;  The carbon
> monoxide (co/o2) impulse of merely 270 isn't all that impressive,
> however, if your bulk raw substance of co2 is available along with all
> of the necessary local energy for processing co2-->co/o2, as then it's
> a total win-win for the old rocket engine or whatever ICE gipper.
>
> If Robert Zubrin's Mars had 1% as much CO2 density as Venus,
> especially at the higher ambient temperature as available on Venus,
> whereas the co2-->co/o2 process would be absolutely impressive, and
> even more so impressive if Zubrin didn't have to import a hefty and
> spendy nuclear reactor for accommodating the required process energy.
>
> Guess what, Venus offers geothermal vents of nearly 100,000 fold
> (possibly a million fold) more CO2 density to work with than Mars, and
> it's rather nicely geothermally preheated for processing, plus there's
> unlimited local energy for whatever's the energy demanding task
> associated with CO2-->CO/O2.  There's also a good amount of hot S8 to
> deal with.
>
> How many thousand tonnes of co and o2 per day or ever hour would you
> naysay folks like?
>
> How many spare/surplus teraWatts of renewable energy would you naysay
> folks like?
> -
> "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> -
> Brad Guth

Not that this anti-think-tank swarm of Usenet naysayism isn't bad
enough, but these topic avoidance or diverting folks just can't seem
to get enough out of lying to one another, as in rusemaster to
rusemanter of digging their individual bigotry in for the long haul.
No matters what, they just can't get an honest grip on the primary or
secondary worth of my topics, at least not without going postal.

As I've asked rather nicely;
What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less)?
and the one of "Locals/ETs making Venus happen, in spite of
ourselves"

I'm into sharing and otherwise looking for the best available science,
thus requesting equally weird or better ideas as to how we or ETs
might exist/coexist in places that seem a bit testy for accommodating
us humans in the buff.  How about yourself?

Are you folks per chance afraid that such ETs are likely smarter than
your collective swarm?

As far as I've been informed, there's absolutely nothing within the
regular laws of physics or of known planetology that'll stop a half
smart ET from making a go of it on Venus.  Terribly sorry about that.

However, perhaps you silly folks of the all-knowing Usenet naysayism
swarm are still deathly afraid of your own shadows, or of those MIB
that'll kick butt if you so much as let one unauthorised fart slip
out.

Is there an unwritten law about having to exclude evidence that rocks
your boat?
-
Brad Guth

The toasty conditions on Venus are those mostly influenced by the
geothermal forced environment.  The solar influx of what's adding
thermal insult to injury is obviously a factor, just not the primary
consideration of thermal trauma that we've been told about.

The quality image of what looks as though representing a rational
community of large complex structures, including a few surrounding
reservoirs, a bridge and tarmac isn't caused by the 36 look/pixel
composite radar image process, nor otherwise distorted into existence
by the application of a PhotoShop enlargement upon this specific area,
whereas all the other natural surroundings of what exist between and
nearby are looking exactly as though it should be an environment of
mostly hot rocks and active lava/mud flows along with all the expected
erosion patterns.

There's no question that Venus remains as too hot for us humans in the
buff, but that simply doesn't exclude what others may have adapted to
or having applied a degree of their Ovglove and thermal heat
exchanging technology in order to accommodate their species of other
life, that obviously we've not been allowed to see or touch or even so
much as openly ponder without taking serious flak from the all-knowing
swarm of Usenet naysayism.

The research that's needed is one of an open mindset, that'll help
turn weird ideas or deductive conjectures into the sorts of truth or
consequences that a better understanding about our nearby Venus
deserves.  Quoting phrases from the NASA bible/koran that's telling us
Venus is simply too hot or otherwise too nasty isn't helping one damn
bit.  Of telling us the Venus environment is primarly solar/greenhouse
driven is also not helping, especially when the regular laws of
physics and the best available science has been telling us otherwise
for more than the past decade.

Excluding the regular laws of physics and/or banishing the best
available evidence has been the mainstream status quo agenda that's
having been diverting our best resources and talents far away from
Venus, partly because of our NASA/Apollo fiasco where Venus was so
unusually stealth/invisible to those unfiltered Kodak moments, and
otherwise it's simply another faith-based form of swarm intelligence
that's all out butt naked in denial.  It seems certain faith-based
groups have everything at risk, and as such have and will continue to
do whatever it takes for keeping those lids of sequestered truth on
tight (their being in charge of our mainstream media and of whatever
else gets published into textbooks is priority No.1).  Their hiding
behind Atheism isn't working any better than having bet their bottom
dollar on certain warlords.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

Once again, Usenet is dead and the world gets to pay the same old
status quo price over and over, including Iraq, WWIII, WWIV and if
there's anything left for WWV (the final yellowcake war because most
all of fossil fuel has been expended and geothermal extractions are
getting out of control, along with our having 100 meters of extra
toasty ocean depth to deal with whatever's left of salty dry land to
fight over).

Venus being the next best thing to early or proto Earth seems almost
like too much of a good thing.  Too bad it's not ours for the taking.

There's spare/surplus local energy to burn (sort of speak), as in
teraWatts available in order to extract and/or process whatever.

There's no question that the active planetology of Venus is worth much
more to an intelligent ET than anything Earth as to offer.

The surface complex that's "guthvenus" isn't merely a collection of
weird (one of a kind) hot rocks as looking so downright rational and
intelligent worthy.

Venus is not outside the applied physics of what's easily accomplished
within the spec of existing technology.

It's many times easier to accomplish Venus than our moon.

The newish planetology of Venus is physics and science friendly.

Our NASA and even ESA are each working towards excluding all such
knowledge of whatever's intelligent about Venus, and Usenet has been
an extention of Zionism.  Go figure otherwise.
-
Brad Guth

Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to the Zion
mindset.

Otherwise the planet Venus along with its 256 fold of geothermal
energy that's greater than what Earth has to deal with, and as such
geothermal energy of a newish planetology is going away from Venus, is
just too much of a good thing.

Too bad that honest observationology is so gosh darn taboo/
nondisclosure rated to boot.

Too bad the the best of available science can't be shared and shared
alike.

Venus is ET doable (though not in the buff), and possibly even
survivable by locals that are simply evolved as smarter and/or better
adapted than us.

We're not being told the whole truth and nothing but the truth about
Venus.  Gee whiz, our Zion government has been lying to us again (what
a surprise).
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth  wrote:

> Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to the
> Zion mindset.
> 
> Otherwise the planet Venus along with its 256 fold of
> geothermal energy that's greater than what Earth has to deal
> with, and as such geothermal energy of a newish planetology is
> going away from Venus, is just too much of a good thing.
> 
> Too bad that honest observationology is so gosh darn taboo/
> nondisclosure rated to boot.
> 
> Too bad the the best of available science can't be shared and
> shared alike.
> 
> Venus is ET doable (though not in the buff), and possibly even
> survivable by locals that are simply evolved as smarter and/or
> better adapted than us.
> 
> We're not being told the whole truth and nothing but the truth
> about Venus.  Gee whiz, our Zion government has been lying to
> us again (what a surprise).

We'll see Venus straight overhead at midnight before we see you 
get a clue, Crazy Brad.

On Jun 25, 10:09 am, John Griffin  wrote:
> BradGuth  wrote:
> > Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to the
> > Zion mindset.
>
> > Otherwise the planet Venus along with its 256 fold of
> > geothermal energy that's greater than what Earth has to deal
> > with, and as such geothermal energy of a newish planetology is
> > going away from Venus, is just too much of a good thing.
>
> > Too bad that honest observationology is so gosh darn taboo/
> > nondisclosure rated to boot.
>
> > Too bad the the best of available science can't be shared and
> > shared alike.
>
> > Venus is ET doable (though not in the buff), and possibly even
> > survivable by locals that are simply evolved as smarter and/or
> > better adapted than us.
>
> > We're not being told the whole truth and nothing but the truth
> > about Venus.  Gee whiz, our Zion government has been lying to
> > us again (what a surprise).
>
> We'll see Venus straight overhead at midnight before we see you
> get a clue, CrazyBrad.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You're saying that the regular laws of physics and of the best
available science doesn't apply to Venus, but otherwise everything is
perfectly doable about Mars or having walked upon our moon?

Is there a new Zion fart of a reason for this skewed analogy of
essentially physics and science fuckology?
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth  wrote:

> On Jun 25, 10:09 am, John Griffin 
> wrote: 
>> BradGuth  wrote:
>> > Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to the
>> > Zion mindset.
>>
>> > Otherwise the planet Venus along with its 256 fold of
>> > geothermal energy that's greater than what Earth has to
>> > deal with, and as such geothermal energy of a newish
>> > planetology is going away from Venus, is just too much of a
>> > good thing. 
>>
>> > Too bad that honest observationology is so gosh darn taboo/
>> > nondisclosure rated to boot.
>>
>> > Too bad the the best of available science can't be shared
>> > and shared alike.
>>
>> > Venus is ET doable (though not in the buff), and possibly
>> > even survivable by locals that are simply evolved as
>> > smarter and/or better adapted than us.
>>
>> > We're not being told the whole truth and nothing but the
>> > truth about Venus.  Gee whiz, our Zion government has been
>> > ly