http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

GuthVenus index

Brad Guth - Venus / 1-253-8576061
Page access:
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj

This blog page is "Guth Venus"(GuthVenus), or at least covering a small but intriguing bit of hot surface area within the lower third and center portion of but only one Magellan mission image, that's worth the effort to see for yourself what this extremely nearby planet Venus has to offer.  You can most certainly accomplish your own digital resample/enlargement, or use whatever I've accomplished with the relatively outdated photo software at my disposal.  This digital image resampling/enlargement process is not of any weird voodoo, nor is it capable of randomly faking or introducing anything that isn't basically there to begin with, as my usual mainstream gauntlet of critics has so often suggested, including those of NASA as of December 2000 we not buying into any of this, perhaps because it was a closed and thereby unfunded aspect of history that can never get revised. (silly me for thinking otherwise)




"Magellan radar image of lava channels north of Ovda Regio, Venus. This image shows the Lo Shen Valles, a system of channels and large collapsed source areas. This left-looking image from cycle 1 forms the left side of a stereo pair with the cycle 2 right-looking image C1-15S095;201. (Magellan C1-MIDR 15S095;1,framelet 18)"  http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif

An assortment of Magellan thumbnail images, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel): http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html


 This following processed (not doctored) view is actually providing a terrific derivative composite that's utilizing three full frames worth of 75 meter/pixel resolution images as having been stacked and averaged for delivering the best compromise, whereas each of those original SAR images having contributed 4x radar scans per pixel is what's making these GIF monochrome composite pixels about as truth-worthy as 36 averaged radar looks or confirming scans per 225 meter pixel can possibly get.  The most interesting area of what's offering a look-see at such a highly complex area of perfectly natural terrain as well as potentially a little too much artificial considerations of oddly symmetrical geometries as rather unexpected items that could even suggest a level of rational infrastructure, is all contained within roughly a 10% area that's a third up from the bottom and roughly center.  For best viewing results you will need a basic photo enlarging utility, which is different than merely zooming in by using a screen magnifier or your generic Ctrl+++ option, though most modern-day browsers including iPhone and Safari will accomplish this task of zooming in with little or no digital resampling or image processing expertise required of yourself.  Obviously we have resolution limitations, but only problematic for items smaller than 75 meters.

If you'd care to submit a revised image from whatever digital image zoom/enlargement via IrfanView,
PhotoZoom or some other software that you've selected as your best effort, please go right ahead and do so.  I'll otherwise recommend a few user-friendly alternatives that even a dysfunctional 5th grader can manage, but you need not fear that I'll reject your efforts unless you've made your closed mindset negative intentions obvious.  Remember that you do not have to process the entire image, but instead just focus upon the 10% portion, although either way the results will always turn out exactly the same because, the original GIF or even its JPG 1:1 version never changes a damn thing, at least not on its own.


Photo view/enlarge via IrfanView
 http://www.irfanview.com/



PhotoZoom Pro (mac and pc)
 http://www.benvista.com/main/content/content.php?page=downloads


This image is just offering your basic 10X resampling/enlarging effort, as I've done so many times in basic PhotoShop, along with the unsharp mask filter set as having 4 pixels rounded off and 200% sharpening or intensifying.  Other photo enlargement or zoom-in methods can likely accomplish this automatically and as well or even better, and otherwise so easily or seamlessly accomplished that even dysfunctional 5th graders can manage.  On most PCs are those screen magnifiers and always the Ctrl+ + + keys that'll gets you in for a closer or enlarged look-see.  The 1:1 image allows you to easily count individual pixels in order to estimate those various dimensional aspects as based upon 225 meters per pixel.



If you elect to stick with the raw 1:1 image format and of its 225 m/pixel resolution (as I certainly did at first), or worse insist upon excluding and/or ignoring whatever's under a km per any given dimension, then perhaps you need not bother yourself trying to interpret anything outside of those three extremely large protruding hot rocks.  There's also a whole other complex realm of image interpreting expertise when its a radar(SAR) obtained format to begin with, but again you'll need to lose your negative or closed naysay mindset in order to become intelligent enough to start with, because most naysayers are usually in such a profound status-quo state of denial that they don't even want to accept this is even an image of the planet Venus.

I have many other wordy pages and loads of hard and soft numbers pertaining to the physics and science of this extremely nearby and toasty planet, plus a few other images published elsewhere that I can retrieve or revise from scratch and submit for whatever it's worth.  However, I do not expect to have identified or interpreted everything as correctly, as may otherwise be possible to improve upon by those having equal or better observationology expertise.  So by all means, your interpretation could be more correct, and I would give full credits to those willing to seriously take on this risky business that suggesting there has been some other form of intelligent life existing/coexisting on the plant Venus.


In Google Groups (Usenet/newsgroups and G+) I go by the names of Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” (not related to Alan Guth)

These links are ofered on behalf of Hank Kroll (a close family associate) that also thinks a little outside the box, and like myself can manage to deductively connect pixels and dots that others seem blind and/or dead closed mindset oblivious to.

 http://www.guarddogbooks.com

From time to time Google Groups or G+ becomes extra sluggish and/or dysfunctional (especially within browsers other than Chrome), often worse at times after I've contributed something new or even old.  It seems to be another Google G+ work in progress; sorry about that.  Google Groups+(G+) version of Usenet/newsgroups seems to get rather broken or dysfunctional, as having been accepting our contributions like a terrific vortex that's sucking everything in, but then it’s not always quick at updating itself in order to properly display our replies, as though it has turned into a somewhat dysfunctional Usenet/newsgroup black hole.  Once again, and typically shortly after having posted alternative links to the likes of earthquake prediction pages, such as those of E.D.G. eq-forecasting, everything comes down to a halt.  At least the index updating function of Google Groups version of Usenet/newsgroups is suddenly dysfunctional whenever disclosing creditable research as having almost anything to do with our moon.

Since my alternative “Guth Usenet” and the newest "Google Usenet" accounts are still up and working like a charm, as public accessible for anyone to contribute and read whatever updates, must mean that those individuals or special interest groups (usually faith-based and redneck ZNR/GOP FUD-master types) in charge of whatever the general public and media get to read of our public Usenet/newsgroups as once again being intentionally terminated or simply as having been diverted and/or hacked to death in order to accomplish their primary task of mainstream media damage-control.  They also use a tactic of simply piling on loads of worthless topics and otherwise made as nasty and X-rated as possible.

At least within my Usenet/newsgroups we can still clean up, exclude and even block those topics contributed by such FUD-masters.
 http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet/topics?hl=en

 Obviously it has not been any local problem with my computer or that of its crappy Cenrtylink DSL provider, and obviously it’s not any Google Groups glitch if my personal stuff including “Guth Usenet” and "Google Usenet" are still working like a charm while all other public and moderated newsgroup stuff has tanked, or slowed to a crawl by G+.  Clearly Google Groups and especially Groups+(G+) version of accessing Usenet/newsgroups has from time to time been further compromised and/or is being intentionally topic/author stalked and possibly hacked to death in order to keep as many K-12s and even adults as diverted or as far away as possible.

I had only recently replaced the “uk.media.newspapers” newsgroup with “sci.astro.ccd-imaging”, so perhaps that’s where things got all screwed up, because that newsgroup had summarily died with my topic being stuck at the top of its newsgroup page.  Otherwise it’s not my fault that my Google Groups account had once been showing 37000+ views of my topics and replies per week and thereby could be causing such problems, unless my topics and other replies were causing too much drain on the local server bandwidth.  Apparently we’ve gotten too close to the Google/NOVA Usenet event horizon, because we’re sucked into its black hole where our stuff goes in, but then noting comes back out.

-
 alt.astronomy, sci.astro.ccd-imaging, alt.news-media, alt.planets.venus, alt.journalism

 “Guth Venus / Brad Guth and the hot planet 2.02
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/86e88fbd2a533110?hl=en#
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.ccd-imaging/browse_frm/thread/47eab5a34790be03?hl=en#

 Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
 Brad Guth / Blog and Google document pages:
 http://bradguth.blogspot.com/

 http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj

No comments: