Life Spotted on Venus - Russian Scientist

reply to post by ProudBird


I don't have to, already know it has life on some channels, and some kind of architecture there. Its just that Venus acts like a comet at times, so ETs there would have to be somewhat advanced, and treat it like a craft. Advanced does not equal positive.

Originally posted by Larry L
reply to post by ProudBird

 

Interesting, so you don't think the ESA answers to the same "PTB" that NASA does, and expected to cover up the same exact things? Ans the Ausies? Isn't JPL's main facility in Austraila? Why would you think THEIR higher ups aren't also towing the company line? Even the Nippons and the Chinese who you would think might be out of "TPTB" loop if one exists have been caught spreading space-based lies. Am I the only one who remembers the supposed Japan moon orbiter sending back those "AWESOME" picture?......Oh yeah.....that's right....they were NASA images from a decade earlier.

Wow, that could be cool. Where did you read that, and where can we check up on the claim?

Uh, if "John Lear told me" is all you're gonna provide, don't waste the bitrate.

BTW, no, it is NOT true that JPL's "main facility" is in Australia. You're hallucinating again.

Can anyone find any hard data on (or from, in the form or research papers) Leonid Ksanfomaliti? A thorough Google search spat out page after page of this story, the aforementioned claim he made that extraterrestrials must have created the solar system, and little else. After searching some more, I did find this article where he claims to have concluded that aliens created the Nazca lines.

The doctor in Physics and Mathematics from Institute of Space Investigations of the Russian Academy of Sciences Leonid Ksanfomaliti has come to an analogous conclusion: "I think, such could take place only under the influence of a radial instrument of a high technological level. Something like the future high-power laser.

www.dopotopa.com...

What makes me even more skeptical, however, is that the original basis of this thread is an article claiming that he works for the "Space Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences" (as does the article above claim.) This is the official website of the SRI of the Russian Academy of Sciences: www.iki.rssi.ru... which features recent news, discoveries, missions, etc. Why wouldn't a discovery of this magnitude, were it credible, be on their site?

Just asking. Peace.

reply to post by Larry L


Oh, well......this seems to indicate that wherever your "sources" are coming, you may wish to re-evaluate them:

Isn't JPL's main facility in Austraila?

Nope.....try Pasadena, California. Or, about an hour's drive from where I live.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Larry L

I'm just sayin' Mr. Oberg. That's basically what you just describled to me, ....

Nope, it ain't, and you and your stubborn self-delusions are not worth arguing with. You just make things up, imagine somebody else said them, and then either believe or attack, at your pleasure. Enjoy. Gawd, I hope you're not a registered voter.

I just dont get why I've had a T&C violalation for far less vitriol in a post, but bl'Oberg always gets a pass...
And this, IMO, is a total troll thread...

Life, any life, on Venus seems like a pipe dream. But I'm always willing to be wrong and/or learn....

Originally posted by JimObergGawd, I hope you're not a registered voter.

The feeling's mutual, sir. Because if you'll believe some of the complete non-sense NASA often spews as scientific fact...............what won't you believe? Were you really shocked when that "change" never came? But hey, it takes all kinds.

When authority figures have been proven to continually lie, I actually start looking into what that person or org. says. And from my studies into things NASA says, they lie alot. And their entire description of Venus is one of those things they lie about.

reply to post by Larry L


Do you not understand the science of spectroscopy?

And specifically, planetary spectroscopy?

Oh, to add:

How do we know the temperature on the planets?


Even works with extrasolar planets, too:

Spectrum of young extrasolar planet yields surprising results


(This is how they are finding "Earth-like" conditions dozens and hundreds of light years away!!)

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Larry L
reply to post by ProudBird

 

Interesting, so you don't think the ESA answers to the same "PTB" that NASA does, and expected to cover up the same exact things? Ans the Ausies? Isn't JPL's main facility in Austraila? Why would you think THEIR higher ups aren't also towing the company line? Even the Nippons and the Chinese who you would think might be out of "TPTB" loop if one exists have been caught spreading space-based lies. Am I the only one who remembers the supposed Japan moon orbiter sending back those "AWESOME" picture?......Oh yeah.....that's right....they were NASA images from a decade earlier.

Wow, that could be cool. Where did you read that, and where can we check up on the claim?

Uh, if "John Lear told me" is all you're gonna provide, don't waste the bitrate.

BTW, no, it is NOT true that JPL's "main facility" is in Australia. You're hallucinating again.

No, John Lear didn't tell me. It was here on ATS (I'm talking about the "Japan" moon images). As Japan was releasing the images, posters here started showing the Japan images right nest to their NASA counterparts. They were the same exact images. I'll try and find it an post an external link (meaning not the ATS thread), that summarised all the info. When I find it, I'll post it here for you to look at.

About the JPL facility in Austraila, I don't know that it's the "main" facility. But I do know JPL has a huge facility in Austraila. From what I've read it's the facility that images/data from probes, landers and everything else JPL/NASA has sent up, goes to first before it's sent on to NASA and JPL in California.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Check out the authoritative 'Encyclopedia Astronautica' here, to straighten out some of the confusion in ALL of our minds:
www.astronautix.com...

It reports the probe entered the atmosphere with a heat shield which was then jettisoned, and DID use a parachute for descent stabilization before the paracute was jettisoned for terminal descent to the surface.

So i'll meet Larry halfway re the probe design -- and zero-way re his model of the Venus environment.

Jim, you can't agree with me on the parachute (which didn't you call ME ignorant on the matter), then disagree on the environment because in that environment a parachute isn't going to work. And STILL that doesn't explain where's all the shielding and protection for the crash landing? Where's the crater and debris from said landing? Just like Lear say it was, that looks like a full parachute landing, or at least released very close to the surface. Which would mean that environment isn't all that different than Earth's in terms of atmosphere.

This is why I say John Lear was right again. I don't believe everything Mr. Lear says. Certainly not. (soul cube?) But he has been proven right enough that I always listen to him, and then look into what he says.........assuming it's plausible. ANd in the case of Venus, what he says looks to be closer to actual truth than even plausability.

Anyway, regardless of John Lear or anyone else, I've lookied into these things myself. ANd I don't come to any conclusions until I do so. I'm not saying this stuff just because John Lear said it. But I give the man credit where it's due. The OP posted this story in 2012, John Lear was saying he heard this info from sources almost 10 years ago, and now here it is coming out from the actual scientists.

Also, I havn't fount the Japanese pics that were NASA pics originally yet (still looking), but while searching for that I cam across a nice link summarizing all the russian missions that had anything to do with Venus. Good little read if anyone wants to check it out

www.mentallandscape.com...

Still lurking, still confused as to what this is all about.

I do tend to believe Venus is more than likely far too inhospitible to sustain any sort of organic life (not a lot of things live inside a fire)...but I am aware of the counter hypothesis that closeness to the sun may not necessarily be the end all/be all of temperature.

I think we have better tech now and perhaps its time that -china- or the like sends a probe there again...perhaps with live feed so we don't feel we are being hoaxed..until then, if this thread is any indication, it will just be endless speculation and eventual charlatans selling their Venus people stories (like the face on mars issue)

Would be cool though to find a full and lush environment next door...and from what I hear, plenty of women on venus.

reply to post by Larry L


Lear at best is a disinfo agent, at worst a complete crackpot.
His issue is he believes, and therefore relays, everything under the sun (and over it)..

The best way to bury the truth is to say it but sandwich it between two giant piles of bullpucky. Problem is, if he gets one nutty thing right, then suddenly people start assuming everything he said is right...(soul sucking moon towers and such).

He is entertaining, and is actually a really nice guy..but be very careful what you accept as fact from his mouth...doesn't mean ignore him..hell, chase up actual facts about whatever he is talking about if your curious enough, but ya...he is sci-fi.

reply to post by Larry L


You seem to be fixated on this concept of a "crater":

Where's the crater and debris from said landing?

Why should there be a "crater"? The lander was designed to survive an impact on landing and force that would result from a certain vertical velocity.....surely, a "crater" would have meant it had hit FAR faster than its design tolerances, and would have been destroyed.

Drop a car from a height of say, 100 feet onto hard soil or rock here on Earth (just for an example, not to indicate the actual forces on Venus, with the Venera Landers).

Do you think that car, on Earth, would make a "crater"?

Here, cars being dropped onto a grassy field, so it's dirt, right??:




Oh, and only "debris" would be the heat shield for the atmospheric entry and deceleration....and that would have been jettisoned well up-track of the landing trajectory, on descent.....


And, here's another example, with close-ups of the car (skip to 3:00):

(Ooops, forgot the video....here it is)-----

This thread delivers

In following L's train of thought, if the atmosphere of Venus is hot enough to melt lead, how could this lander enter from orbit, face even hotter temperatures on the way in, burst through layers of sulphuric acid, land and then take pictures? From the looks of the photo, the lander isn't melting. Logic would seem to suggest that landing something in a fire pit isn't possible by our technological standards.

So either the Russians never sent a lander to the moon or we are all being mislead about Venus. Which is it? Is it a given that Russia pulled this off? Sure seems that way...

reply to post by TheReligiousHoax


Because the Lander was not made of lead!

I can melt lead on the backyard barbecue. (I do it to make lead weights for reasons.....neat way to build R/C airplanes, instead of using pins and a cork building board....)...

.....but anyway, I melt lead wheel balancing weights in a tin can, on the flames. The clips that are part of the weights don't melt, just the lead. Pick those out with old needle nosed pliers, while still molten, then pour into my molds.

The Venera was made of materials to withstand the heat and pressure.....though they succumbed quickly. Longest any lasted was about two hours.

Originally posted by TheReligiousHoax
This thread delivers

In following L's train of thought, if the atmosphere of Venus is hot enough to melt lead, how could this lander enter from orbit, face even hotter temperatures on the way in, burst through layers of sulphuric acid, land and then take pictures? From the looks of the photo, the lander isn't melting. Logic would seem to suggest that landing something in a fire pit isn't possible by our technological standards.

So either the Russians never sent a lander to the moon or we are all being mislead about Venus. Which is it? Is it a given that Russia pulled this off? Sure seems that way...

Not only is it possible, it was possible in the 1980's.

The landers didn't function long at all, because of the harsh environment, but were not expected to.

Maybe they weren't made of lead?

Originally posted by Larry L
Jim, you can't agree with me on the parachute (which didn't you call ME ignorant on the matter), then disagree on the environment because in that environment a parachute isn't going to work. And STILL that doesn't explain where's all the shielding and protection for the crash landing? Where's the crater and debris from said landing? Just like Lear say it was, that looks like a full parachute landing, or at least released very close to the surface. Which would mean that environment isn't all that different than Earth's in terms of atmosphere.

Your not doing yourself or your argument any favors...

To make more room for cloud-analysis experiments, the parachute system was reduced to just a pilot chute, a supersonic braking chute, and a single descent chute which was jettisoned at the bottom of the cloud layer (49 km).As the atmosphere thickened with depth, the craft slowed from 50 meters/sec (112 mph) to a landing speed of 8 meters/sec (18 mph). Descent took 1 hour. Venera-12's landing raised a cloud of dust which darkened the sky for 20-30 seconds, until 1 meter/sec winds cleared it away. At Venera-11's site, no dust was observed.

Drilling into the Surface of Venus

reply to post by ProudBird


If the Lander only lasted 2 hours, wouldn't we see effects of the heat on the lander? If it was on a parachute decent lasting several minutes (roughly 10% of the 2 hour time window), I would expect to see some wear and tear in these photos.

Edit - whoops! Didn't see the post above me. With the decent taking up 50% of the time the Lander survived Venus' suggested atmosphere, surely we would see signs of the Lander melting, right?

Originally posted by TheReligiousHoax
reply to post by ProudBird

 

If the Lander only lasted 2 hours, wouldn't we see effects of the heat on the lander? If it was on a parachute decent lasting several minutes (roughly 10% of the 2 hour time window), I would expect to see some wear and tear in these photos.

What kind of wear and tear?

My guess would be that the electronics would fail first, due to the internal temperature of probe exceeding the design temperature limitations of the electronics. That would happen before the titanium exterior would break down.

reply to post by TheReligiousHoax


Again with the "melting"??

With the decent taking up 50% of the time the Lander survived Venus' suggested atmosphere, surely we would see signs of the Lander melting, right?

It is hot enough to melt lead.....not titanium (or even steel!!).

And that is the situation on the surface, not miles above.

Surface about 465° C ( 867° F ).

Lead melt @ about 330° C ( about 625° F ) (Number varies, but it's damn hot!)

Steel? Well, so many alloys, but as an average: About 1510° C ( 2750° F ).

See the difference??? ^ ^ ^

Originally posted by Cassius666
Average temperature is well above 1500 Fahrenheit. Whatever would live there cant be carbon based. Atmosphere is primarily Co2. Our hypothetical scorpion would have to resist high temperatures and breathe the way trees breathe.

actually it's more like 850 Fahrenheit, but still that's incredibly hot for life to survive. We do however have some bacteria here on Earth that survive in temperatures around 250 degrees.