This effort is intended to allow those so inclined as to critique first and think later, or as pro-NASA types so often simply fail to think at all, as to their participating in this review and ongoing research of the "GUTH Venus" discovery (noooo, apparently NASA types can't do that!).   These following considerations and the "To Do" list are simply my way of properly accommodating those having "the right stuff" and otherwise recognizing and then properly dealing with (circumventing) their ulterior motives.

1 - Observationology is not per say about astronomy; nor geology nor much of any other "ology". This is not to say that observational skills are not those of a highly trained and experienced nature, demanding far more then of your typical weekend photo shoots and, you really need to have your sight, as affirmative action hiring or not, those braille image interpreters working for NASA are simply a real bummer (dogs and white canes may have worked just fine for those Apollo mission photos, however, they simply don't cut it any more).

2 - A discovery of this magnitude is not required to have either astronomy or even secondary observationology aspects (such as calling out specifics as to what certain identifications are being utilized for).  In the absence of other better alternatives, such as actual geology samples and certified photos (including their original negatives) as acquired from the actual planet surface (preferably with someone holding up a copy of the "Venus Times" newspaper), our existing visual observations and those especially as being provided by the "extraordinary" as well as 43� perspective SAR imaging, is nicely representing the very best of what the majority of our planetary and lunar exploits have ever delivered. NASA's very own NSA/DoD SAR approval is that classified as being vastly superior to any conventional photography, especially whenever comparing to such images that are of highly questionable conventional photographic content and, even as better then those acquired from the finest CCD imaging, as both of these formats represent serious limitations as well as to permitting manipulations (especially when their original flies or negatives are not being offered) and, thereby support nothing as truthful nor as downright defining and usable as to what SAR format can and has delivered.

SAR imaging is even more so totally above reproach, especially against most other image formats, especially should those original CCD files and/or photographic negatives be eliminated from the essential process of establishing "extraordinary proof" and thereby "truths", as well as away from the more capable hands of the experienced commercial photo labs which could have otherwise easily burned (not literally) those so called dim stars from within that otherwise black lunar sky, sufficiently so that a qualified stellar expert(s) would have easily verified the originating location from which all of those Apollo missions occurred, and/or simply have resampled every image into a highly more usable as well as truly certified enlargement, where 5X is a snap and 10X is entirely within every acceptable standard (unless your trying to read news print from 225 km, then I'll have to agree, that such efforts are currently not all that acceptable, at least not until the latest round of upgrades are applied into Hubble, then we'll all be reading foreign news print).

NOTE: as of more then five years ago, the very best satellite capability of SAR (@0.1� aperture, utilizing that 60 meter receiving mast and a 1024 imaging sensor) along with applying certified digital resampling was perhaps at 1.5" resolution. Today we should be capable of at least 4 times better, which is still not news print and, not that SAR is even suited for such applications, unless that news print were headline large as well as to be offering a sufficient differential of signal reflective quality, as obviously SAR is not only that which is color blind, it also is not going to detect anything lessor then one wave length nor that of most black inks from that of the paper (at least not from a distance of 225 km and furthermore, not if being further limited or restricted to merely X-Band frequencies). If we don't have a 2048 or a 4096 format receiving sensor, apparently "Quick Bird" does.

3 - Because this "GUTH Venus" discovery has been achieved via experienced observational capabilities;  others staunchly opposing must equally demonstrate their observational expertise as well as otherwise introduce whatever basis for their contentions and, this will likely require an image or two, of at least similar artificial looking considerations, that they and others can somehow confirm as being either that of an illusion and/or of purely natural origins. I know that there are thousands of such Earth images to work with and, I have said this before, that I would accept their efforts even if such SAR imaging resource was of Earth (so how hard can that be?).

4 - In reviewing the potential of whatever these estimated functions and/or applied usage of such artificial elements may be; for this I utilized my thousands of commercial 70mm photographic hours as well as hundreds of aerial imaging observational experiences in order to differentiate what is natural from that of artificial and, I therefore expect at least the same or better from others, otherwise, what's the point. In addition to my capabilities, the archives of SAR imaging are chock-full of exceptional examples which have been fully certified as to differentiating what is artificial from that which is natural (a search for: "SAR images" on the net will overwhelm your need for such "extraordinary" proof).

5 - Accepting your criticisms;  I will acknowledge that my documentation format is not NASA's format (far from it). Early on, long before I ever developed any of my web documents, I tried as best I could to not only inform NASA as well as other pro-NASA types, but I also took additional time (hundreds of investigative and learning curve hours) in order to become as self critical as I could. I learned more about digital photography and subsequent enlargement options then is necessary to have discovered everything you see in my discovery sites.

6 - The most critical issues may become those having to deal with the October 2002 opportunity; and, I fully expect those interested and/or critical should reconsider their motives and that of those so intent upon suppressing what this discovery has to offer. What possibly could be the motives as to passing up this opportunity and, what is so damn secret that will not become public within the next year or so (I guess this may be where things get really spooky, sort of like those shoot outs on "GUN SMOKE", who is going to make the first move).

What this discovery obviously needs is plenty of other expertise;  including chemical, aeronautical, geological, atmospherics and assorted others. As I've stated throughout my delivery (unlike NASA), I'm not the all-knowing expert and, this massive discovery I believe deserves a wide base of expertise, which need not require your having one bit of astronomy nor observationology capabilities, unless you intend to simply continue bashing away until the day you die. On the other hand, if you in fact do have thousands of hours involving hands-on 70mm or better photography talent, as well as substantial aerial observational experience to offer (such as U2 or other such aerial spy image interpreting), then by all means, others and especially myself will be most interested in whatever you have to offer and, I'll see that your research is given the credits due.

Ulterior motives are about the only logic which remains to be better understood;  as I certainly have no motive towards introducing a discovery which offers no potential nor viable goals (such as acquiring those Mars microbes), as what could my hidden agenda possibly be, other then disclosing this major discovery as an oversite and perhaps a few other NASA related "truths" and, perhaps that of getting our pathetic NASA back somewhat onto a space research and exploration track, thus onto achieving worthy as well as obtainable (humanitarian worthy) goals and, thereby saving us taxpayers a few hundred billion over the next decade (unless of course, you can inform me as to why we need those Mars microbes).

I am certainly not the one saying that everything accomplished by NASA has come at too high of a price;  simply hoping that perhaps a little focus becomes a bit closer to home. If for instance; should those 250 billion dollar Mars microbes lead us into discovering the entire DNA coding of every Earth bound Rhino virus, then by all means, let us proceed. After all, resolving the common cold and quite often that includes various flu's, is annually worth (in this country alone) countless billions (at the very least 100 billion worth and perhaps globally we are talking of at least 10 trillion, year after year), by simple elimination of the major cause of sick leave, as well as countless sleepless nights by parents having to deal with their sick kids, not to mention productivity considerations, especially by those of us unable to afford nor otherwise not entitled to sufficient job benefits so as to compensate for our down-time. Please, someone tell me that this is where those next 250 billion dollars are going. I know that conquering that Rhino virus is not all that exciting, obviously not as popular as Cancer and AIDS, but nor is it "rocket science", just as long as NSA/DoD don't have their eyes upon those microbes for the intent of their creating another wicked batch of biological technology, by which to dominate Earth, then at least I'll be at rest and, then simply you and I will be alive but broke for having to pay for all that.

If my forthright motives are what's bothering you (freaking you out), then you haven't seen or heard anything, as perhaps you need to become willing to share in the coming outfall of "truths", those truths regarding what our Administration(s) and beloved NASA/NSA/DoD have been up to for the past three decades and, equally so prepared as to share in the responsibilities of the associated restitution issues (perhaps 100 trillion bucks worth).

If you want any portion of what's to be coming out of this "GUTH Venus" opportunity, you simply must share whatever it is that others can utilize towards furthering this adventure. If you are an avid pro-NASA type (like myself, except for all the NSA/DoD cloak and dagger stuff), then merely provide whatever you can without violating your "nondisclosure" agreement (it wont do either of us any good if you're incapacitated or worse). Siding with the "GUTH Venus" discovery is certainly not about doing bad things and, if you think otherwise, just step aside and we will not keep mentioning your name every time others and myself must re-defend my discovery.

Thank you for your understanding and support; Brad Guth / IEIS