Will the Real Planet Venus Please Stand Up!

From Alex Collier's book:

"According to what we are told, Venus is over 1,000 degrees with sulfuric acid in the atmosphere. Now, anyone who has ever worked with chemicals know that if you heat sulfuric acid up, that whatever it comes into contact with eventually turns into mush. Well, Venus isn't mush at all. Look at these structures right here. They're the same mining bridges we saw on the moon. Venus was mined when it was one of the moon of Uranus, for borax, which is used as an electrically conductive substance."

[edit on 14-10-2007 by GeeGee]

Originally posted by bigbert81
And as for Zorgon, like I've told you before, the information is out there to find EASILY. Why don't you hop on Google and do some looking yourself instead of always attacking anyone who comes here looking for some information/theories from John? There are several of contrasting websites about much of this info.

Now that is an amazing comment...

Ummm whom am I attacking? You mean my request for a source link to the ET data provided above that shows obvious flaws? You do know it is courtesy to provide such links when you post info?

Seems to me you questioned the same stats...
"Found this: "The atmosphere of Venus is primarily composed of carbon dioxide (96%) and nitrogen (3%), with traces of other gases and little to no water vapor" Spacevisitor, you might want to check out your stats."

Hmmmm me do research on my own? what a silly notion...



[edit on 14-10-2007 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon


It has to do with your overwhelmingly condescending way of writing for everyone who just questions a theory that goes against everything we've been taught. Do you think that when people bring information to John Lear on this thread that they are making up all of the numbers? I agree that some of them don't add up properly, but to be patronizing about it is a little ridiculous.

I've read some of your replies like the one you gave me 2 pages ago and how you respond to other people's data, and instead of having a discussion with them, you attack them with a mocking tone.

Originally posted by bigbert81
Do you think that when people bring information to John Lear on this thread that they are making up all of the numbers?

Probably not but it is usually required of all of us here at ATS to provide a link with facts to back up a statement... so the rest of us can check the data ourselves...

I agree that some of them don't add up properly, but to be patronizing about it is a little ridiculous.

Ah I see you disapprove of my style... fair enough... many here would probably agree with you

I've read some of your replies like the one you gave me 2 pages ago

Well I shall have to look page and see how I offended you... though none was intended...

Have you by any chance stooped by this website recently?

www.thelivingmoon.com...

reply to post by zorgon


I've stopped by it briefly, but haven't really checked it out that much. I'll see what I can find and take some time to review the info there and let you know...

thx

Ah I see where lies the problem...

Hmmmm It appears I only answered one post by you asking you to provide facts to back your statements..

Your response was...

"Well, firstly let me say thanks for not jumping all over me in a defensive fashion."


"Now, before you start to attack me, have you even Googled any of these questions you're asking? "

Then instead of providing me with a link you name one person and then add...


"And no, he's not the only one. You might benefit from researching some of this stuff yourself, or even watching the History Channel (which they've shown all of this to the general public) before you come raining down on me."

And then the next time I hear from you... I get this...


"And as for Zorgon, like I've told you before, the information is out there to find EASILY. Why don't you hop on Google and do some looking yourself instead of always attacking anyone who comes here looking for some information/theories from John? "

Well yup I can see how we got off on the wrong foot...

Just an FYI for the future telling someone to "Go look it up yourself" doesn't wash around here.

I've stopped by it briefly, but haven't really checked it out that much. I'll see what I can find and take some time to review the info there and let you know...

I think you missed the point




[edit on 14-10-2007 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon


Hmmm, you know what else is funny, you seem to have totally ignored the fact that I've already stated that it's NOT you asking for facts, it's HOW you're asking (not at all) and how condescending you are. If this helps:

con·de·scend·ing /ˌkɒndəˈsɛndɪŋ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kon-duh-sen-ding] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective showing or implying a usually patronizing descent from dignity or superiority: They resented the older neighbors' condescending cordiality.

dictionary.com was my source for that.

Is that better? Like I said, you become extremely defensive over anything anybody else brings to the table. That is what I've been saying, NOT that you're bad for asking (I love how you soften your actions) for sources.

Originally posted by bigbert81
Hmmm, you know what else is funny, you seem to have totally ignored the fact that I've already stated that it's NOT you asking for facts,

Uh huh and you have still missed the point

First a correction,
I made a mistake by this one.

Venus day = 117 Earth days, so this is correct after all.

This following quote is my mistake,

strange, this totally contradicts the NASA information; Venus rotates in the retrograde (opposite) direction and spins around once every 243 Earth days.

I checked the following by wikipedia.

Venus rotates once every 243 days—by far the slowest rotation period of any of the major planets. A Venusian sidereal day thus lasts more than a Venusian year (243 versus 224.7 Earth days). However, the length of a solar day on Venus is significantly shorter than the sidereal day; to an observer on the surface of Venus the time from one sunrise to the next would be 116.75 days.[

Source; en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by spacevisitor

The atmospheric pressure there is 107 times greater than on Earth.

Sea level atmospheric pressure is 334 times greater than Earth.

Hmmm May I ask which ET's gave you this data? Seems to be a few errors worth noting.. 107 or 334?

I have no answer for this, maybe a mistake during the translation, this is what wikipedia say.

Venus has an extremely thick atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. The atmospheric mass is 93 times that of Earth's atmosphere while the pressure at the planet's surface is about 92 times that at Earth's surface—a pressure equivalent to that at a depth of nearly 1 kilometer under Earth's oceans. The density at the surface is 65 kg/m³ (6.5% that of water). The enormously CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generate the strongest greenhouse effect in the solar system, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C.[15] This makes Venus's surface hotter than Mercury's, even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance. Because of the lack of any moisture on Venus, there is no relative humidity on the surface, creating a heat index of 450 °C to 480 °C.

Originally posted by zorgon

Atmosphere is 87% carbon dioxide
• Oxygen exist at 4.23 %
• Nitrogen and rare gases count for 55.47%

87.00
4.23
55.47 clearly 5.47% must be correct, and I know that it isnt 100% total either
----------------
146.70

Hmmmm I guess my Alien math most be off...
Apparently not, thanks for your remark.

Sorry I will stick with John's version for now

No problem, I didn’t say that John isn’t right.

Composition in wikipedia:
~96.5% Carbon dioxide
~3.5% Nitrogen
.015% Sulphur dioxide
.007% Argon
.002% Water vapor
.0017% Carbon monoxide
.0012% Helium
.0007% Neon
trace Carbonyl sulfide
trace Hydrogen chloride
trace Hydrogen fluoride

Originally posted by zorgon
Perhaps you could link us to that ET report?

I can’t find the link to that ET report anymore myself, if so I had provide it of course. I have the worddoc afcource.

Originally posted by bigbert81
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

Found this: "The atmosphere of Venus is primarily composed of carbon dioxide (96%) and nitrogen (3%), with traces of other gases and little to no water vapor" Spacevisitor, you might want to check out your stats.

[edit on 14-10-2007 by bigbert81]

[edit on 14-10-2007 by bigbert81]

The info I provided is dated June 1975, so I think its highly possible that it can be changed in all those years , doin't you think it either bigbert81?

This is my first time reading this thread and it seems pretty darn controversial. I wouldn't be surprised if NASA only gave 5% of the truth to the public. NASA clearly can manipulate what they show you and control what is being show at all. And I'm more than convinced that there is life elsewhere but here. Its not hard to grasp the possibility of having a habitable planets in our solar system at some point of time if not today. Anyone that believes we are stuck here on earth and can't go inhabit any other planet is clearly doomed. Because this planet earth won't last forever. And how intelligent would we really be if our future is inevitably to become extinct on this planet. I believe eventually we will be able to explore the solar system and inhabit other planets, because what are we going to do when the inevitable time comes just die slow? or not.

[edit on 29-10-2007 by ready4whatever]

Originally posted by ready4whatever
This is my first time reading this thread and it seems pretty darn controversial. I wouldn't be surprised if NASA only gave 5% of the truth to the public. NASA clearly can manipulate what they show you and control what is being show at all.

It's somewhat amazing how you are fixated on the supposed manipulation by NASA. Guess what, the Soviets flew a host of missions to Venus and published data that is bound to be independent from NASA left, right and the center. Just check out links with details about various missions on the bottom of that page:

en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, it is damn hot, yes, the venusian surface is rocky and the pressure is quite high.

Originally posted by Aelita


It's somewhat amazing how you are fixated on the supposed manipulation by NASA. Guess what, the Soviets flew a host of missions to Venus and published data that is bound to be independent from NASA left, right and the center. Just check out links with details about various missions on the bottom of that page:

en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, it is damn hot, yes, the venusian surface is rocky and the pressure is quite high.

Honestly I don't find NASA to be very credible. Ive seen NASA astronauts talk about encounters with Extraterrestrials, and we don't hear anything from NASA about it do we? Anyways Im actually Russian and I know about some of their space missions. Like I said "at some point of time if not today" there was life on Venus. I agree that currently Venus exceeds very high temperatures, and has the pressure about 9 times than on earth. But Hundreds of millions years ago, I am more than convinced there was life.

"But the planet once had a climate similar to Earth's and vast oceans of water. Planetary scientists agree that period ended when Venus lost its water due to a runaway greenhouse effect, but the question is when.

Until now, the best estimate, calculated 15 years ago by James Kasting, of the Pennsylvania State University, was four billion years ago - just 600 million years after the Solar System's birth."

source

And by the way, Wikipedia is a very weak source, since anyone can post and contribute to the definition.

Originally posted by ready4whatever
Honestly I don't find NASA to be very credible. Ive seen NASA astronauts talk about encounters with Extraterrestrials, and we don't hear anything from NASA about it do we?

I don't think NASA is too credible either, but there are limits as to how much a scientist can lie. Seriously.

Anyways Im actually Russian

Luck would have it, I am, too. Hello, brother.

and I know about some of their space missions

I read a lot about these when I was a kid. Plenty of credible data, imho. Alas, no vegetation and/or pleasant rivieras a la John Lear.

John,

I hate to bump up this old thread, but it doesn't give the option of posting a new thread in your forum. I was reading through this one and a very important question comes to mind.

I have been reading up on Remote Viewing and Astral Projection lately and a number of sources I've read claim that the Astral Plane is on a different vibrational frequency than the physical dimension. AND that, what you see when projecting does not neccessarily coincide with the physical dimension that we exist on.

So therefore, is it possible that what your remote viewers saw on Venus exists in an entirely different dimension than the one we exist on? A higher dimension? If that is the case, then both stances may be right. That here in the lower physical dimension humanity exists in, Venus is a hellish desolate place with sulfuric clouds, while, at a higher vibrational frequency, life exists there at the same time.

Is this correct?

Originally posted by mike_b

So therefore, is it possible that what your remote viewers saw on Venus exists in an entirely different dimension than the one we exist on? A higher dimension? If that is the case, then both stances may be right. That here in the lower physical dimension humanity exists in, Venus is a hellish desolate place with sulfuric clouds, while, at a higher vibrational frequency, life exists there at the same time.

Is this correct?

Thanks for the post mike. Anything is possible. But I think what is happening in remote viewing is that the mind is accessing the gravity B wave. The gravity B wave is the gravity that holds us on the earth, and the moon in orbit around earth, and everything in orbit around the sun.

It is my opinion that the gravitational flux of the B wave is instantaneous throughout the universe. The gravity of earth has an instantaneous effect on a star in the farthest reaches.

That’s how a gravity phone works. A gravity phone is hooked up to the gravity wave or flux and you can talk to someone a thousand light years away instantaneously.

I think that is how ‘remote viewing’ works. You are ‘hooking up’ to the gravitational flux throughout the universe.

When my remote viewing class remote viewed Venus that were looking at Venus as it was that day in time: populated, no wars, fine weather, efficient and pollution free transportation, no hunger.

If the mainstream public were ever to find this out they would probably want to know why WE can't enjoy the same. That is why we are fed the baloney about 90 bars of pressure and exploding volcanoes and a sulphuric atmosphere. Its just more NAZA disinformation.

Thanks for the post.

Here is a very interesting bit of news.... (and a new thread)

Originally posted by blowfishdl
NASA actually planned a manned mission to Venus way back in 1967. If they really thought they could do that at the time, what is stopping them and how far has the human really gone into space without any of us knowing anything about it?

www.galaxiki.org...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Lets note that this was a flyby mission only, due to the fact that the surface conditions of Venus are too harsh for manned exploration.

A lot about Venus can be found by amateur astronomers (composition, temperature, ect) I wonder why the thousands of them have not went against Nasa's view of Venus if what they are saying is such a big lie. Could it be possible that many people, over decades of study, could all be in on it?

And if you think that the instrumentation used to gather this data could be in error, could you tell me why you think so?

There was no NASA back in 1927. The temperature of the high-altitude layer of the Venusian cloud cover was measured using large telescopes and found to be warmer on the night side than the surface of planet Mercury (which is significantly closer to the Sun):

www3.interscience.wiley.com...

There was no NASA and no coverup. Temperatures on the surface of Venus were recongized as extremely high back in 1927. So we can put to rest all these silly stories regarding crisp and cool Venusian air and lush vegetation around Venusian lakes

Originally posted by buddhasystem
There was no NASA back in 1927. The temperature of the high-altitude layer of the Venusian cloud cover was measured using large telescopes and found to be warmer on the night side than the surface of planet Mercury (which is significantly closer to the Sun):

www3.interscience.wiley.com...

There was no NASA and no coverup. Temperatures on the surface of Venus were recongized as extremely high back in 1927. So we can put to rest all these silly stories regarding crisp and cool Venusian air and lush vegetation around Venusian lakes

Who said there was a NASA in 1927?

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