Will the Real Planet Venus Please Stand Up!

NASA describes Venus (based on their spacecraft’s findings and the findings of Russian spacecraft) as:

At first glance, if Earth had a twin, it would be Venus. The two planets are similar in size, mass, composition, and distance from the Sun. But there the similarities end. Venus has no ocean. Venus is covered by thick, rapidly spinning clouds that trap surface heat, creating a scorched greenhouse-like world with temperatures hot enough to melt lead and pressure so intense that standing on Venus would feel like the pressure felt 900 meters deep in Earth's oceans. These clouds reflect sunlight in addition to trapping heat. Because Venus reflects so much sunlight, it is usually the brightest planet in the sky.

Sulfur compounds, possibly attributable to volcanic activity, are abundant in Venus' clouds. The corrosive chemistry and dense, moving atmosphere cause significant surface weathering and erosion. Radar images of the surface show wind streaks and sand dunes.

More than 1,000 volcanoes or volcanic centers larger than 20 kilometers (12 miles) in diameter dot the surface of Venus. Volcanic flows have produced long, sinuous channels extending for hundreds of kilometers.

John Lear, however, begs to differ with NASA. Based on information John has accumulated, including data from George Adamski who was afforded a ‘bird’s eye view’ of Venus and several remote viewer friends of John’s he believes Venus is more like this:

(The following are quotes from “Inside The Flying Saucers” by George Adamski):

A beautiful planet similar to earth with seven oceans, all connected by waterways both natural and artificial. Magnificent mountains, some white-topped with snow, some barren and rocky, very similar to earth.

There are many Venusian cities, some large, some small following a circular or oval pattern. The structures are beautiful, with no monotonous lines. Many had domes radiating in prismatic colors. At night the colors cease and the domes become luminous with a soft, yellowish light. There is much uninhabited territory.

People on Venus are very similar to those on earth.

Cars and buses used for transportation vary in size as do those on earth. The only difference is that they appear to ‘glide’ along the surface using an energy system much different from ours.

The beaches on the lakes have sand that is very white and fine like on the finest beaches on earth.

The tropical sections of Venus have vegetation similar to earth but are much lusher because of an atmosphere than is much more moist than earth. The people on Venus rarely see the stars as we do on earth because of the constant cloud cover.

The following is based on information from friends of John’s who are remote viewers:

Venus has a constant cloud cover which is a pale yellow color and the reflection makes the oceans and the lakes yellow in color.

Now, based on NASA’s record of reporting, what sounds more plausible? The Venus described by NASA or the Venus described by John Lear (using George Adamski’s quotes, and descriptions from John’s remote viewer friends)?

Hmm let me think... believe what some "remote viewers" think or what NASA, RSA, ESA and other various scientific and astronomical organizations say. I think I'll go with the latter, thank you very much.

As far back as 1932, it was established that the atmosphere of Venus consisted of carbon dioxide. Also when spectroscopic, radar and ultraviolet observations were first made in the early 20th century, it helped reveal a lot of the detail under the thick cloud cover. In the 1920's the first UV images were taken and they revealed a fair amount detail that one couldn't see normally. And remember, this is all long before NASA or any other space agency was around.

I don't think the dense atmosphere with thick, constant cloud cover and extremely high temperatures is well suited for a thriving civilization. I'm sorry to say, but your idea that there are oceans and cities and all that on Venus is so bad, it's not even wrong.

It is interesting that you post this John because I was just discussing not only the moon ideas but Venus and Mars with my fiance last night.

NASA and the RKA definitely are covering up what is really on Venus. All attempted Venusian landers have subsequently failed after reaching the planet. I count 12 of them which all have supposedly plunged into the Venusian atmosphere to never be heard or seen from again. Whether they really failed or not can be questioned. I would be willing to bet that they did actually fail, however that is because they've been programmed to visit a different Venus entirely than what Venus really is (as John describes above). Also note, these landers were not NASA but RKA.

So how about some supposed Venus surface pictures (the ones that actually made it to and broadcast from the surface for a short time).

external image
external image
external image
external image

"Oops, we keep landing in Venuses only large desert..."

The problem is that our scientific data is pretty much limited to NASA and other world space agencies. I believe that they do release a lot of truthful information, but we really have no way to know here. A few people at the top of these organizations could manipulate any space data to support any secretive agendas.

Perhaps NASA and Russia's Space program are in on the conspiracy, and have mislead people into thinking Venus is totally uninhabitable. This would divert attention to Mars, where we have sent a bunch of rovers and the public's interest remains high in. Perhaps venus holds the real secrets.

It's all speculative though. Mr. Lear is no more credible at this point than NASA. I'm not more inclined to believe him simply because NASA has lied in the past and he has some "psychic" friends.

Life on Venus was possible according to some scientists. Does this look like a river system or what?

pds.jpl.nasa.gov...


Venus possibly habitable for billions of years

The hellish climate of Venus may have arisen far more recently than previously supposed, suggests new research. If so, pleasant Earth-like conditions probably persisted for two billion years after the planet's birth - plenty of time for life to have developed.

www.newscientist.com...

From what I have read, Venus has two distinct layers of atmosphere of at least one bar or higher. Planetary atmospheres are best understood as systems of zonal equilibria.

For ex, Earth has one tropical zone, two flanking temperate zones and two polar zones. Prevailing winds in adjacent zones move in opposite directions. During the last glaciation, prevailing winds in modern temperate latitudes were polar easterlies -- ie: the polar zone pushed south and the tropical zone was compressed or perhaps even non-existent. The doldrums and "horse latitudes" of still air mark the zonal boundaries where air currents are moving away in both directions and there is no inflow to push on a sailboat.

Zonal equilibria are a function of insolation, axial tilt and atmospheric viscosity. Earth has space to accomodate only five zones. Global warming will convert the two polar zones to temperate climates and give rise to a supertropical zone at the equator. When the tipping point is reached, the whole zone will reverse its mechanics and settle into a new equilibrium.

Jupiter and Saturn have many more than 5 zones; hence the bands of alternating clouds. Mars has at least 3 zones.

Because of the incredible viscosity of Venus atmosphere, I don't think we know how many zones it has yet. BUT, I think its atmosphere is so deep that it has two layers of zonal climates. The high velocity winds at mid altitudes mark this boundary. There is a boundary there -- clouds of sulphuric acid and water vapour exist only in the upper system. This gives rise to the need to consider an atmosphere that is fully circulating in more than one axis, where convection currents may be as powerful as cyclonal currents. Think of an oldfashioned wringer washer machine. A convection downdraft from the upper zone will be met by a matching updraft from the planet surface. Then both winds shall turn and merge along the mid-depth boundary as a supersonic wind until it comes to the next matching pair of drafts where, this time, one wind shall turn up and rise and the other shall sink down again. I feel certain this is how sulphur gets transferred up from the surface.

A bubble colony caught in a downdraft would be pulled down and sucked into this mid-depth conveyor belt and driven along at terrific speed to the next zonal boundary, where it would then either rise back to the cloudtops or be sucked down to the surface. The path to the surface from the cloudtops is not a vertical drop but a high speed S-curve, down, across and then down again. If it survives the conveyor belt portion of the trip, its buoyancy should guarantee a return to the cloudtops.

Conclusion: cloudtop colonies will need to be vigilant about maintaining neutral positions in the atmosphere and they will need ready and dependable power sources NOT dependent on aerodynamics to overcome rough weather.

Venutians? White sand beaches? Buses? Lush flora? Sounds to me like these 'remote viewers' were looking out a hotel window in Bermuda if you ask me. Sorry, but I have a very hard time giving this any credibility.

Hi John, do you have anything to say about Venus' retrograde rotation VS the rest of the solar systems antegrade planetary rotation? Do you think this is a quirk of early disk accretion theory or was it the result of an ancient cataclysm?








edit sp

[edit on 31-5-2007 by Stale Cracker]

Remote viewing is very interesting, even wikipedia is up in the air about whether or not it's an valid phenomena.

I have just posted my very own Remote Viewing Experiment to see what others can see, if the RV source can be viewed and described by any remote viewers out there, try it out!

Remote View Experiment

Hey John, do you believe the Val Thor story, the alien visitor from Venus I believe who's been/was kept (prisoner?) at the Pentagon for a while?

Any truth to that story?

Peace

The Day The Earth Stood Still. Weren't the aliens in that film supposedly from Venus? Visiting us to try and shake us into decent people?

I think they were trying TO EAT US!!! "Soylent green IS PEOPLE ITS P-E-O-P-L-E!"

jk

From:
www.imdb.com...
An alien (Klaatu) with his mighty robot (Gort) land their spacecraft on Cold War-era Earth just after the end of World War II. They bring an important message to the planet that Klaatu wishes to tell to representatives of all nations. However, communication turns out to be difficult, so, after learning something about the natives, Klaatu decides on an alternative approach. Written by Bruce Janson

A flying saucer orbits the 1950s Earth. It lands in Washington, DC, on the Mall. The lone occupant steps out and is shot by a jumpy soldier. Gort, a large and very powerful robot appears to save him and is able to melt tanks with the slightest bit of his power. The wounded alien orders Gort to stop his rampage and is taken to a hospital from which he escapes in order to learn more about this planet, even moving in as a boarder with an Earth family. When they begin to suspect him, he reveals himself, along with the news that Gort is a member of a race of super-robot enforcers invented to keep the peace of the galaxy that will destroy the Earth if provoked. Written by John Vogel

Remote viewing is very real.
Governments on both sides of the Atlantic know this. There are speciality units, some of them incredibly powerful.
Do not doubt your consciousness. It will also become a hell of a lot more real.
Say hello to the real World.

Originally posted by Stale Cracker






I don't know why Venus' rotation is different from all of the other planets. If it is.







[edit on 31-5-2007 by johnlear]

Originally posted by Dr Love






I don't know if the Val Thor story was true or not. Dr. Frank Stranges still believes so. Since I bellieve the stories of Adamski, Menger, Betherum et all are true there should be no reason to disbelieve the Val Thor story.

Whether or not the Val Thor story is true, the statements he is alleged to have made certainly are. And those statements are that (and I am paraphrasing here) Earth would not be incuded as one of the bastions of intelligence in the known universe.

Remote viewing! I must have a chuckle ...

How can anyone prove or refute what someone who claims to be a remote viewer saw? Answer: they can't. Therefore it is unprovable, especially in regards to Venus.

Paranoid ol' me, who is suspicious of just about everyone and everything can't think of a real reason NASA would cover up what was really on Venus, if there was a civilization there. What would be the point?

At the rate our planet is going to the dogs, I would think that the powers that be (read: greedy corporate overlords) would be just dying to get their hands on Venus' natural resources. Since the Venusians aren't from earth, they'd probably make a good case for conquering under the auspices of "the Bible says that god's only begotten son came to EARTH, not Venus, therefore the Venusians aren't people, they're there to be exploited." We do that on THIS planet where we are all human.

My take on the possibility of humanoid life on Venus? Utter bullhockey.

If the cloud cover is that dense, no plants would be able to photosynthesize. What do they eat, each other? Oh, that would be a convenient reason to exploit them, too -- they are cannibals! Therefore they are not equal to us. Even though our distant ancestors and recent primitive tribes still practiced cannibalism as well.

Why would life on another planet have to be human-like? We have four limbs and a head because of the radial symmetry of our common ancestors, but there is no reason that life on another planet even so nearby would follow the same template.

This sounds more like the plot of an Edgar Rice Burroughs novel than anything real or credible.

Now that I've had my chuckle for the day, I think I'll go back over to BTS.

Just for the record, Val Thor claimed to live on the inside of Venus, not on the surface, whatever that's worth.

Peace

I have major doubts about the official story regarding Venus.

Here's why:



Twice as far from the Sun, and twice as hot as Mercury? Because of greenhouse effect? It just doesn't add up that way to me.

I say we seed the clouds, make it rain, and get a look at what's really going on over there.