[Top] [All Lists]

Re: MESSENGER Lines Up for Venus Flyby

Subject: Re: MESSENGER Lines Up for Venus Flyby
From: Art Deco
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:14:59 -0700
Newsgroups: sci.astro, alt.sci.planetary,,, alt.usenet.kooks, alt.astronomy
Brad Guth <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Well a couple of questions arise. You say they've "imaged" Earth,
>>Venus, & so on. How do we know what planet they really imaged, when
>>they're saying they're feeding us a picture of Venus?
>That's a good point, as well as how do we know this Earth is our home
>Just because we're born here doesn't prove that Earth is our natural
>home world.
>I have no independent proof-positive those images from the Magellan
>mission are any more so of Venus than those supposed NASA/Apollo EVA
>images are of those images supposedly obtained while situated upon the
>surface of our moon.  Although, at least the laws of photon physics as
>proven by the hard-science of Kodak and therefore I too can quite
>easily prove those NASA/Apollo EVA images are bogus.  However, I can't
>hardly imagine the motives or any other fuzzy logic for the vast
>archive of those radar images of 75 m/pixel not being those of Venus.
>>How do we know that they didn't image Earth, and then tell us it was
>We have similar SAR images of Earth, some of which obtained by the very
>same class of radar imaging instrument and lo and behold, Earth doesn't
>look nearly the same, especially of the vast expanse that's water, of
>which radar imaging typically depicts water as being recorded as a
>nearly zero signal that's usually transfered into GIF format depicted
>as black is pretty much a dead give away.
>>Do you believe personally that there is life on Venus?
>>From what little I've learned of regular laws of physics, of
>extremophile and regular biology and from the best available soft and
>hard-science known about Venus, if that were reasonably added in
>support of my subjective interpretation of what the primary image has
>been telling us, that which I've pointed out for 6+ years as indicating
>what's most likely intelligent/artificial, as such I'd have to say YES!
> I personally believe there has been and that there's a damn good and
>perfectly rational chance there still is other intelligent life on
>This doesn't represent that such other life is strictly derived from
>the original evolutionary process.  Though natural evolution is
>entirely possible and certainly capable of having adapted to the
>existing situation, I tend to favor the imported form of intelligent
>other life (aka ETs) as simply going about doing their thing, just
>exactly like we'd be doing if we could.
>What I'm suggesting is that in addition to uncovering the likes of
>extremophiles or perhaps barely heathen status is that we'll have
>discovered a little of both being the case, with Venusian locals and
>visiting ETs somewhat working the easily available resources for the
>better good and benefit of each species that has an established nitch
>of existence to hold onto.  What I need is a little sharing of the
>talents and resources of others that'll help to refine and focus our
>best efforts upon achieving the best possible results from the next
>missions to Venus.  For starters, I'd like to get the VL2-TRACE
>platform into it's station-keeping duties as soon as possible.

Dear Brad:

Please post a list of all the extremophiles.  Thanks.

Yer pal,


Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005

"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
  -- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>