Will the Real Planet Venus Please Stand Up!

Originally posted by Chemicalbrother
Who said there was a NASA in 1927?

Have I missed something somewhere? If I have, I apologise.

Oh, I'm sorry, I should have been more explicit.

The dialogue goes like this:
(a) John Lear makes an interesting claim such as there is life thriving on Venus, Moon, etc
(b) member(s) of the forum point out that due to available data from a variety of sources, surface conditions on Venus, Moon etc. can not possibly be conducive to life
(c) John Lear announces that all the data have been doctored by the evil NASA. And he has remote viewers to prove him right.

Now, there are of course plenty of data that predate NASA, thus making such claims of data manipulation impossible. I just quoted the 1927 source... I'm not even talking about detailed and very precise observations of the Moon that were going on throughout millenia and which are incompatible with Lear's claims re: gravity on the Moon.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Chemicalbrother
Who said there was a NASA in 1927?

Have I missed something somewhere? If I have, I apologise.

Oh, I'm sorry, I should have been more explicit.
I just quoted the 1927 source...

Sorry to be a nuisance, but it's the 1927 source that I'm having trouble finding. Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks for the quick reply.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Try the link I alredy posted.
Pretty old materials.

The date of publication is February 1932 (look in the upper left corner of the page), and in the text there are references to 1927 and 1925. No NASA coverup. Good science, too


[edit on 3-12-2007 by buddhasystem]

reply to post by buddhasystem



Do you mean the link to Interscience which charges $25 for 24hrs access?

reply to post by Chemicalbrother


Hmm, I posted a link to the PDF document. It's entirely readable for me. Is it for you?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by Chemicalbrother

 

Hmm, I posted a link to the PDF document. It's entirely readable for me. Is it for you?

Unfortunately not.

The cover up of the real Venus didn't start until the early 1960's when the NAZTY NAZA NAZI'S took full control of the space program and all information within it.

In fact, as late as December 1, 1959 scientists were not ruling out the possibility of life on Venus.

Here's an article about Water Vapor on Venus
that states that scientists had discovered water vapor on Venus.



Here's another one:



However by the time the Russian rocket to Venus, Venera 1, was launched in February 1961 the Nazty Naza Nazi's disinformation campaign was in full swing, claiming unlikely and obviously bogus pressures and temperatures and composition of atmosphere.

The goal was to prevent the public from learning about life on the other planets and satellite of our solar system.

And the reason for this was succinctly presented in "Dark Mission" by Hoagland and Bara: "…the original and continuing core of NASA, who they identify as ‘Freemasons, SS (Nazis) and magicians’, and who they call “ritual elitists”, have ‘literally stolen the entire space program for themselves from the rest of all Mankind"

They go on to say that “Space is destined to remain 'the sole possession of only those with (these) proper bloodlines and perspectives’…but not for any of the rest of us".

reply to post by johnlear


Many thanks for the link, John. The article is quite specific about the fact that they didn't know just how much water was present there. Obviously, the eventual estimate is that the water vapor in the Venusian atmosphere corresponds to, very roughly, 1/2000 of the amount of water present on Earth:

www.sciencenews.org...

Unless you are into steam and pressure cooking, the small amount water vapor on Venus isn't of much use because vapor won't support life at these temps.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Unless you are into steam and pressure cooking, the small amount water vapor on Venus isn't of much use because vapor won't support life at these temps.

Thanks for the post BS. Your knowledge of Venus is influenced by factors out of your control and which provide you with erroneous data which you try to spread around on this thread as fact.

I understand that and appreciate your posts and input anyway.

reply to post by johnlear


I may have missed it, so please forgive me if I did.

John, do you have any sources or data that may be more current? Like, something from within this century? I ask because quite often people defending some principle will cite how science is always changing, and scientists are always discovering new paradigms, or rewriting theories, so we should never be sure exactly how strong some evidence is. But it's odd that much of your supporting documentation is many decades old. Do you have anything newer?

Originally posted by MrPenny

But it's odd that much of your supporting documentation is many decades old. Do you have anything newer?

Ah...I wish. But since those Nazty NAZA Nazi's took control very little information leaks out. I am a very good listener so occasionally I will get some new information but they have this new 'Truth Serum Program" that depending on the level of your clearance you can be random and/or scheduled for testing and all I can say is you better not be responsible for any leaks because with this truth serum nothing is secret.

Its very effective but it has everybody scared to death, angry, upset; its breaking up families and hindering progress.

I wrote a little article about "Trouble At The Test Site" a few months ago and this truth serum thing is big trouble because is so invasive of your privacy. People can't even complain to anyone because that fact will come out in the truth serum session.

Not only that. They are probably (yes I say probably) modifying behaviour with this serum and what that means is that anybody read into a level of classified programs that requires the "truth serum test" is nothing more than a human robot.


Thanks for the post.

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post BS. Your knowledge of Venus is influenced by factors out of your control and which provide you with erroneous data which you try to spread around on this thread as fact.

Very funny, John. I found this article from 1932 and haven't found anything wrong with the method of their measurements. Maybe you can comment on the specific physics issues that you think were wrong. When you say these data are erroneous, this is an empty talk (what else is new?).

According to you, pre-60s data is all wrong, and post-60s data (even coming from the Soviets!), is all manufactured. Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. That's too much of bending of truth just to make your "remote viewers" seem believable.

There are some quality radar studies of the Venusian surface but of course you will elect to ignore these as well.


[edit on 3-12-2007 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by Chemicalbrother
Who said there was a NASA in 1927?
Have I missed something somewhere? If I have, I apologize.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Now, there are of course plenty of data that predate NASA, thus making such claims of data manipulation impossible. I just quoted the 1927 source...

Brilliant as usual Excellent research there Mr Buddha

1927 huh? Hmmmm

The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) was a U.S. federal agency founded on March 3, 1915 to undertake, promote, and institutionalize aeronautical research. On October 1, 1958 the agency was dissolved, and its assets and personnel transferred to the newly created National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NACA was pronounced as individual letters, rather than as an acronym.

Says so right here in your favorite book

Wikipedia

Dont you ever get tired of the misinformation you present?



Nice looking bunch of gents with only your best interest at heart

"In the early post-World War II period, the engine industry was fearful that the NACA would interfere in the development of engine prototypes. "

NACA became NASA 1958



Funny... they are still doctoring data relating to airplanes even today

[edit on 3-12-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon

Dont you ever get tired of the misinformation you present?

Well if ever the words Pot, Kettle and Black were needed it is now

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Hmm, I posted a link to the PDF document. It's entirely readable for me. Is it for you?

Nope all we get is a screen asking for money Not even a document title or even a free abstract... Thanks for the source though... I will file it for later...

:shk:

Originally posted by The Todal
Well if ever the words Pot, Kettle and Black were needed it is now

Another 'intelligent' observation from the skeptic community...

But I prefer 'cauldron' suits my style better and Pot is such a nasty word



[edit on 3-12-2007 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon


Zorgon,

thanks to pointing out that a precursor organization existed under a different name before NASA. However, it's scope, money and authority had nothing to do with NASA we now know. To suggest that the original aeronautic agency was twisting the hands of astronomers back in 1925 is beyond ridiculous (but I've come to expect that).




[edit on 3-12-2007 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by buddhasystem To suggest that the original aeronautic agency was twisting the hands of astronomers back in 1925 is beyond ridiculous (but I've come to expect that).

I neither suggested or said that... those are words you are putting in my mouth... (like usual)

I would be more inclined to suspect the Naval Observatory.. but that's another story

Originally posted by buddhasystem
There are some quality radar studies of the Venusian surface but of course you will elect to ignore these as well.

See there you go again with the assumptions :shk:

I posted this early in the thread but likely you didn't read a lot of our previous posts...

Besides I am kinda partial to this image... Nice clear sunny sky.... shadows clearly visible... not a cloud to be seen... just a contrail or two with shadow... nice looking place...



Full Size

So much better than that ugly "Lava Orange" that NASA has chosen to colorize the images with... I wonder why they chose that horrible color?





And please... don't try to tell us that that is the real color on Venus



They could have used Red green Blue or Purple... but they chose that "Lava Orange' to brainwash people into believing its a furnace

using the same data...

This picture of Maat Mons and Sappas Mons on the surface of Venus was generated for the Scientific American Library Series. The image was created from altimetry and radar data returned by the NASA Magellan mission to Venus.



Much better

So it appears the raw data is open to a lot of interpretation

Hey Zorgon !!!!!!!!

Nice work. I like the first picture of Venus you have posted there.
When you see it at full size it wouldn’t be hard to imagine that a lot of the lines formed on the picture are the result of flowing water caused by occasional rain.
Are there any more pictures of the surface of Venus like this?
The pictures taken at Saturn’s Moon Titan are equally as funny in the way they have been doctored and lost.

Again, I ask, what about the current instrumentation used to gather planetary data to you find to be inaccurate and why? What, exactly, is it about modern spectrographic data that you disagree with (for example) and how do you have an alternative data collection method that we could look into that led you guys to such fantastical conclusions?

I would imagine that with such outlandish claims you guys could tell us why and how astronomers all over the globe could be wrong? And don't bother blaming it on the Nasa "truth serum"