There is/was no deception with regard to Venus...

Those of us who have read Mr Lear's moon photo thread will no doubt notice he has a penchant for quoting "sources" decades old

Based on Earth based observations alone, Venus has an atmosphere composed of CO2 and various sulphur compounds....

I have not seen one skerrick of evidence from Mr Lear or others, that this is not the case...

I mean, the moon photos, sure there are some dubious things going on up there based largely on decade's old photos...But Venus, habitable...

In this case, the onus of proof/evidence is upon those who claim Venus is indeed habitable or not what conventional science has shown it to be...

And I repeat, those who say Venus is not what science has said it is, have not produced anything remotely resembling creditable proof to substantiate their case...

Again, Zorgon....

What precisely do these images prove ? Again, I say...What do you make of, or how do you refute analysis of the Venusian atmosphere taken from Earth that indicates it largely contains Co2 & sulphur compounds ?

I didn't at any point say some form of liquids were not possible on the surface...On the contrary, given the likely extreme pressures on the surface, it is possible that liquids do indeed exist there...

As to what they are (I.E Water as opposed to some other compound), we simply do not know, tho we can take an educated guess...

I think we're going to have to wait for further analysis of the planet in order to form a reasonable opinion of whether there are indeed free liquids on the surface of Venus, and precisely what those liquids are...

However, given what we already know of the makeup of the atmosphere, I think its highly unlikely we are going to find water vapour in sufficient quantities to suggest free water on the surface...

The temperatures on the surface, as we already know, most likely preclude this...

Originally posted by zorgon
AND since its a wide angle shot... I find it an amazingly clear and bright sky, no thick vapourous clouds anywhere in those two corners. Must have been a calm day I suppose...

You can see that the ground closer to the horizon looks rather hazy. It's like this in all the images. It's an overcast sky. Also, you can also see that no object is casting a well defined, hard edged shadow. Everything is lit uniformly due to the overcast sky.

Originally posted by zorgon
This time its a pretty blue color. Seems NASA can't make up its mind what color to paint it

It's colorized. From NASA:

This colorized picture of Venus was taken February 14, 1990, from a distance of almost 1.7 million miles, about 6 days after Galileo's closest approach to the planet. It has been colorized to a bluish hue to emphasize subtle contrasts in the cloud markings and to indicate that it was taken through a violet filter. Features in the sulfuric acid clouds near the top of the planet's atmosphere are most prominent in violet and ultraviolet light.

Originally posted by nataylor
It's colorized.

Really? I did not know that...

Originally posted by zorgon
This time its a pretty blue color. Seems NASA can't make up its mind what color to paint it!

Thanks! but I already posted the brown one earlier The question is why did they need to colorize it?

Why not just leave it in natural color?

[edit on 6-6-2007 by zorgon]

The quote from NASA answers your question. To increase contrast and to illustrate it was taken through a violet filter.

[edit on 6-6-2007 by nataylor]

Originally posted by nataylor
The quote from NASA answers your question. To increase contrast and to illustrate it was taken through a violet filter.

[edit on 6-6-2007 by nataylor]

Thanks for your posts nataylor

They make a lot of sense to 99.9% of us on here

Blessings

Originally posted by Rilence

They make a lot of sense to 99.9% of us on here

Thanks for your post Rilence. Of course we all would like to believe that others believe as we do. But 99.9%? Do you have any particular facts that would substantiate such a claim? Does that include those who are not posting their opinion and if so on what basis do you make that claim? Thanks again for your post.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Rilence

They make a lot of sense to 99.9% of us on here

Thanks for your post Rilence. Of course we all would like to believe that others believe as we do. But 99.9%? Do you have any particular facts that would substantiate such a claim? Does that include those who are not posting their opinion and if so on what basis do you make that claim? Thanks again for your post.

Of course, I'm exaggerating the % considerably, just as you and quite a few others on this and other threads have been guilty of...Taking select photos and data and treating it as gospel...Perhaps I'm trying to prove a point in a roundabout way ? Hmmmmm....

Anyways, thanks as always for your contribution

Zorgon, talk to John about the U2U's we have swapped the last few hrs....You might be pleasantly surprised

Tony

Originally posted by Rilence
Zorgon, talk to John about the U2U's we have swapped the last few hrs....You might be pleasantly surprised

Tony

Okay I will call him right now...

but your not getting out of answering my last question above

Hello John!

After having gone through all the comments, I will settle for the scientific evaluation of Venus. Since 1967, the Soviets have used every possible launching window to Venus, a total of ten crafts landing on different locations, sending data back to Earth, most of them operating only for less than two hours in the searing heat and high pressure.

Radar images obtained from the Goldstone station in California enabling mapping with best possible resolution of 10 km x 10 km on the surface.

Between 1975 and 1977 the Arecibo station acquired radar maps with resolution down to 4 kms for the equatorial region of the planet.

Adamski was the most famous of the 1950s UFO contactees; at that time
not much was known about Venus. There were lots of speculations. So while Adamski's books were exciting when he wrote them, they can only be considered as SCI-FI now.

Originally posted by watapi

Radar images obtained from the Goldstone station in California enabling mapping with best possible resolution of 10 km x 10 km on the surface.

I was just wondering watapi, where does Goldstone get their signals from?
I mean after the signals leave the spacecraft where do they go before they get to Goldstone? Also, do you know what the delay is from the time the signal leaves the spacecraft until Goldstone gets it? Thanks very much.

Originally posted by zorgon

Now perhaps you would be so kind and give me your scientific rational explanation for that diamond shaped object with the perfect circle in the center on the Mars image and the rectangle on the Venus image

Thanks


[edit on 7-6-2007 by zorgon]

Not interested in any mars photos, this is a thread about venus...

With regard to the venusian photo, I have no idea what the rectangular feature on the photo is...Knowing the dodgy quality photos the russians sent back of the place, it could be anything...Could be a natural feature, could be man made, could be a photo blemish...

I honestly dont know...