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

Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to the off-world
likes of our moon or Venus.  Apparently the best available science
also doesn't coun't as long as it doesn't stick within the Old
Testament interpretation of whatever our moon and Venus are supposed
to be like.

Apparently, of whatever other intelligent life isn't supposed to be
smarter than a hot rock.  Just like having such an unlimited cache of
local resources, of raw planetology elements along with all of that
surplus of renewable energy to boot doesn't count even if you're as
smart as Einstein.  I guess that I didn't fully realize that such
supposedly smart Jews were actually nothing but a swarm of dumbfounded
village idiots.
-
Brad Guth



On Jun 22, 9:56 am, BradGuth  wrote:
> 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
> - BradGuth

This is the real topic, of those ETs or locals of Venus being for
real.  Whereas the other one as having been hijacked and posted by our
local Usenet Zion fag Art Deco is every bit as phony baloney as their
swarm mindset represents.

Usenet insiders like Art Deco is what goes to prove that I'm a whole
lot more right, than not.
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth  wrote:

> This is the real topic, of those ETs or locals of Venus being
> for real.  Whereas the other one as having been hijacked and
> posted by our local Usenet Zion fag Art Deco is every bit as
> phony baloney as their swarm mindset represents.
> 
> Usenet insiders like Art Deco is what goes to prove that I'm a
> whole lot more right, than not.

How odd...normal people prove you right while you prove yourself 
out of your fucking mind?!  

No, that doesn't work.

On Jul 2, 10:15 am, John Griffin  wrote:
> BradGuth  wrote:
> > This is the real topic, of those ETs or locals of Venus being
> > for real.  Whereas the other one as having been hijacked and
> > posted by our local Usenet Zion fag Art Deco is every bit as
> > phony baloney as their swarm mindset represents.
>
> > Usenet insiders like Art Deco is what goes to prove that I'm a
> > whole lot more right, than not.
>
> How odd...normal people prove you right while you prove yourself
> out of your fucking mind?!  
>
> No, that doesn't work.  

"normal people prove you right"

Please further expand on that thought.

I'm a lose cannon button pusher.  How about yourself?
-
Brad Guth

With unlimited local energy (how many spare teraWatts would you folks
like?); we could hold the future of our Winter Olympics on Venus, and
then some.

What's all that insurmountable when there's such unlimited and
otherwise 100% renewable energy that's already there to behold?

Did you silly naysay folks entirely miss out on physics-duh-101?

BTW, if I were every bit as dumbfounded and otherwise as naysay
snookered to death as yourself, as such I would not try using the
likes of a standard PC on Venus, although within the cool as you like
composite rigid airship or much less our extremely cool POOF City at
VL2 isn't any problem whatsoever.

Ever heard of the cold cathode vacuume tube?  It seems they can be
made extremely small, obviously energy efficient and good for perhaps
better than twice whatever that Venusian environment has to share.
That cold cathode has a 1600 year half life to boot.

There's almost no limits as to the byouancy derived hauling capacity
of our composite rigid airship, as well as offering lots of internal
volume to spare.

Of locally produced thermal insulation that's also as structural as
you'd like is clearly not the least bit insurmountable of obtaining
R256/m, or even as good as R1024/m.
-
Brad Guth

Since naysayers and obviously rusemasters continually manage to forget
mentioning that Venus actually has teratonnes (possibly hundreds of
teratonnes) worth of spare water, as efficiently sequestered within
them thar acidic clouds, and once again that's not even including all
the ice cold beer imported by or on behalf of those smart enough to
survive as locals or as deployed ETs.

Is it polite to ask;  how little h2o is actually necessary for
sustaining an advanced form of intelligent carbon life? (think
exoskeletal)

If there's not too many Venusian souls in need of cold beer, whereas
the existing toasty and atmosphertic pressure differential as energy
resources of Venus are going to more than provide for their needs.
Personally, I wouldn't expect to uncover a Venus population of
millions, whereas more than likely a few thousand could become the
magic number, down to a few hundred as homestead or mining place
savers.

I'm thinking of at most not more than a liter, as perhaps their making
do with a 6pack if not otherwise sucking down two of those extra large
and fortified beers worth of h2o per 100 kg Venusian per 24 hours, as
this exoskeletal Venusian isn't hardly going to sweat, especially not
at nearly 100 bar, and you likely wouldn't dare pull it out in order
piss off the back porch.

Without hardly any sweat glands, you'd think a liter of beer might
outlast 100 hours per hard working 100 kg Venusian.  So, where's the
actual demand for all of that h2o? (that's not going anywhere except
back up into those acidic clouds, where it can once again be easily
extracted on demand).  At least that's entirely within the regular
laws of physics, and otherwise based upon the best available science
at hand.

..01 liter/hr of h2o or beer per 100 kg exoskeletal soul seems rather
doable, don't you think?

Getting that beer cold and keeping it cold is going to demand energy,
but there absolutely no such shortage of said energy as long as you're
on Venus, and of Venus cloud sucking might even be an ongoing sport,
much like skydiving is here on Earth.
-
Brad Guth

Remember folks, of Venus locals or of panspermia deposited ET DNA
being smarter than us has nothing to do with their having or not
having microwave/RF communications, or that of any kind of space
exploration capability.  Just the matter of their having survived
where we humans thought nearly if not impossible is capable of being
far more intelligent worthy than any swarm mindset of human
intelligence on Earth that would much rather topic/author stalk, bash,
exclude evidence and/or banish any such deductive honest thought in
order to protect the holy grail butts of their cozy status quo.
-
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

Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to the off-world
likes of our moon or Venus.  Apparently the best available science
also doesn't coun't as long as it doesn't stick within the Old
Testament interpretation of whatever our moon and Venus are supposed
to be like.

Apparently, of whatever other intelligent life isn't supposed to be
smarter than a hot rock.  Just like having such an unlimited cache of
local resources, of raw planetology elements along with all of that
surplus of renewable energy to boot doesn't count even if you're as
smart as Einstein.  I guess that I didn't fully realize that such
supposedly smart Jews were actually nothing but a swarm of dumbfounded
village idiots.
-
Brad Guth



On Jun 22, 9:56 am, BradGuth  wrote:
> 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
> - BradGuth

This is the real topic, of those ETs or locals of Venus being for
real.  Whereas the other one as having been hijacked and posted by our
local Usenet Zion fag Art Deco is every bit as phony baloney as their
swarm mindset represents.

Usenet insiders like Art Deco is what goes to prove that I'm a whole
lot more right, than not.
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth  wrote:

> This is the real topic, of those ETs or locals of Venus being
> for real.  Whereas the other one as having been hijacked and
> posted by our local Usenet Zion fag Art Deco is every bit as
> phony baloney as their swarm mindset represents.
> 
> Usenet insiders like Art Deco is what goes to prove that I'm a
> whole lot more right, than not.

How odd...normal people prove you right while you prove yourself 
out of your fucking mind?!  

No, that doesn't work.

On Jul 2, 10:15 am, John Griffin  wrote:
> BradGuth  wrote:
> > This is the real topic, of those ETs or locals of Venus being
> > for real.  Whereas the other one as having been hijacked and
> > posted by our local Usenet Zion fag Art Deco is every bit as
> > phony baloney as their swarm mindset represents.
>
> > Usenet insiders like Art Deco is what goes to prove that I'm a
> > whole lot more right, than not.
>
> How odd...normal people prove you right while you prove yourself
> out of your fucking mind?!  
>
> No, that doesn't work.  

"normal people prove you right"

Please further expand on that thought.

I'm a lose cannon button pusher.  How about yourself?
-
Brad Guth

With unlimited local energy (how many spare teraWatts would you folks
like?); we could hold the future of our Winter Olympics on Venus, and
then some.

What's all that insurmountable when there's such unlimited and
otherwise 100% renewable energy that's already there to behold?

Did you silly naysay folks entirely miss out on physics-duh-101?

BTW, if I were every bit as dumbfounded and otherwise as naysay
snookered to death as yourself, as such I would not try using the
likes of a standard PC on Venus, although within the cool as you like
composite rigid airship or much less our extremely cool POOF City at
VL2 isn't any problem whatsoever.

Ever heard of the cold cathode vacuume tube?  It seems they can be
made extremely small, obviously energy efficient and good for perhaps
better than twice whatever that Venusian environment has to share.
That cold cathode has a 1600 year half life to boot.

There's almost no limits as to the byouancy derived hauling capacity
of our composite rigid airship, as well as offering lots of internal
volume to spare.

Of locally produced thermal insulation that's also as structural as
you'd like is clearly not the least bit insurmountable of obtaining
R256/m, or even as good as R1024/m.
-
Brad Guth

Since naysayers and obviously rusemasters continually manage to forget
mentioning that Venus actually has teratonnes (possibly hundreds of
teratonnes) worth of spare water, as efficiently sequestered within
them thar acidic clouds, and once again that's not even including all
the ice cold beer imported by or on behalf of those smart enough to
survive as locals or as deployed ETs.

Is it polite to ask;  how little h2o is actually necessary for
sustaining an advanced form of intelligent carbon life? (think
exoskeletal)

If there's not too many Venusian souls in need of cold beer, whereas
the existing toasty and atmosphertic pressure differential as energy
resources of Venus are going to more than provide for their needs.
Personally, I wouldn't expect to uncover a Venus population of
millions, whereas more than likely a few thousand could become the
magic number, down to a few hundred as homestead or mining place
savers.

I'm thinking of at most not more than a liter, as perhaps their making
do with a 6pack if not otherwise sucking down two of those extra large
and fortified beers worth of h2o per 100 kg Venusian per 24 hours, as
this exoskeletal Venusian isn't hardly going to sweat, especially not
at nearly 100 bar, and you likely wouldn't dare pull it out in order
piss off the back porch.

Without hardly any sweat glands, you'd think a liter of beer might
outlast 100 hours per hard working 100 kg Venusian.  So, where's the
actual demand for all of that h2o? (that's not going anywhere except
back up into those acidic clouds, where it can once again be easily
extracted on demand).  At least that's entirely within the regular
laws of physics, and otherwise based upon the best available science
at hand.

..01 liter/hr of h2o or beer per 100 kg exoskeletal soul seems rather
doable, don't you think?

Getting that beer cold and keeping it cold is going to demand energy,
but there absolutely no such shortage of said energy as long as you're
on Venus, and of Venus cloud sucking might even be an ongoing sport,
much like skydiving is here on Earth.
-
Brad Guth

Remember folks, of Venus locals or of panspermia deposited ET DNA
being smarter than us has nothing to do with their having or not
having microwave/RF communications, or that of any kind of space
exploration capability.  Just the matter of their having survived
where we humans thought nearly if not impossible is capable of being
far more intelligent worthy than any swarm mindset of human
intelligence on Earth that would much rather topic/author stalk, bash,
exclude evidence and/or banish any such deductive honest thought in
order to protect the holy grail butts of their cozy status quo.
-
Brad Guth

You folks should have known better than to ignore the reality of other
intelligent life, as having been existing/coexisting on Venus.

At times Venus isn't but 100 fold the distance of our moon, and to
think that Venus is nearly the size of Earth.  There's absolutely no
shortage of fully renewable energy while on Venus.  A composite rigid
airship as a shuttle is perfectly doable, and otherwise only the most
snookered and dumbfounded village idiots as our infomercial spewing
bigots (aka Yiddish rusemasters, sppoks and moles) are of those not
ever going to accept the truth, as in no matters what. (it's clearly
what the history of their faith-based swarm does best)

If this anti-think-tank of such a highly racist form of such a bigotry
formulated Usenst was worth even half its polluted salt, as such we'd
be involved with the interplanetary likes of what Venus has to offer.

As it stands, we're pretty much lucky we're even still alive and
otherwise stuck with their pathetic Mars thing, and of whatever else
is far away from anything related to our moon or Venus.  In fact, the
truths about Earth's ongong GW fiasco is every bit as Yiddish
perpetrated and/or as having been diverted away from the truth as it
gets.

There's nothing within the regular laws of physics preventing other
intelligent folks from having been utilizing Venus.  It's that simple,
and unlike our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush), a perfectly good radar
obtained image doesn't lie.
-
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

Apparently the regular laws of physics do not apply to the off-world
likes of our moon or Venus.  Apparently the best available science
also doesn't coun't as long as it doesn't stick within the Old
Testament interpretation of whatever our moon and Venus are supposed
to be like.

Apparently, of whatever other intelligent life isn't supposed to be
smarter than a hot rock.  Just like having such an unlimited cache of
local resources, of raw planetology elements along with all of that
surplus of renewable energy to boot doesn't count even if you're as
smart as Einstein.  I guess that I didn't fully realize that such
supposedly smart Jews were actually nothing but a swarm of dumbfounded
village idiots.
-
Brad Guth



On Jun 22, 9:56 am, BradGuth  wrote:
> 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
> - BradGuth

This is the real topic, of those ETs or locals of Venus being for
real.  Whereas the other one as having been hijacked and posted by our
local Usenet Zion fag Art Deco is every bit as phony baloney as their
swarm mindset represents.

Usenet insiders like Art Deco is what goes to prove that I'm a whole
lot more right, than not.
-
Brad Guth