Will the Real Planet Venus Please Stand Up!

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...

For those who are interested. The MESSENGER probe, which is going to Mercury, will be flying past Venus tomorrow (June 5th) and will test and calibrate its instruments as it flies past, giving us some more new data on the planet. It will also work with the ESA's Venus express while it's there as well.

www.space.com...

Originally posted by Rilence
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

Concidering a lot of those 'decades old" images were taken by very sophisticated equipment for the Department of Defense at very high resolution I do not see why this "old data" is invalid? Especially considering we have not yet SEEN those old high res images from the DoD

Until very recently this was the image of Venus released to the press by NASA...



Soviet space images are sometimes printed in astonishingly degraded forms. This is partially the result of generation loss, and partly an effect of cold-war-era propaganda. Sometimes the only available glimpse of a device or an image from space is a photocopy from a Russian journal. The image above is the version released to the American public via NASA. This image is STILL on the NASA website about the Venera 10 Mission at NSSD

The REAL Image below... wouldn't want the people to know the Ruskies had better stuff than us , now would we?



Full Size Image

Now I am really curious about those two white dots in the middle...

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...

Kinda looks like a small lake on the left too...

Originally posted by Rilence
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...

If my wife asks I wasn't here... I'm just checking my mail....

TTFN


[edit on 6-6-2007 by zorgon]

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 Rilence
Again, Zorgon....

What precisely do these images prove ?

Precisely? Why quite simple really... that NASA has a policy of doctoring images. I thought that was pretty clear in my post?

Doctored for propaganda... pretty clear to me

Originally posted by jra

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.

Thats funny I don't recall me ever saying I don't believe there is a cloud cover on Venus...

Its just like the one that used to be over Earth before the "firmament opened" and the rains came... after which people saw the stars for the first time... and lifespans shortened....

But more on that later in another thread...

But on Venus I found yet another image from NASA...

Venus, photographed by the Galileo spacecraft in 1990.



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

So Rilence, your data on conditions on Venus comes from NASA huh? because they seem to agree with you...

June 5, 2007: Picture this: A spaceship swoops in from the void, plunging toward a cloudy planet about the size of Earth. A laser beam lances out from the ship; it probes the planet's clouds, striving to reach the hidden surface below. Meanwhile, back on the craft's home world, scientists perch on the edge of their seats waiting to see what happens.

Sounds like science fiction? This is real, and it's happening today.
In passing, researchers hope to learn a few things about Earth's "evil twin," an Earth-sized world with sulfuric acid clouds, a choking carbon dioxide atmosphere, and a surface hot enough to melt lead.

SOURCE

So now all of a sudden Venus is Earth's "EVIL TWIN" and NASA has added a new sport to its game plan of smashing spaceships into planetary objects (some carrying pounds of plutonium) Now we are doing drive by's with Laser Cannons...

Add that to the fact that ATS'ers are discussing shooting Grays and people are getting arrested for 9/11 protests... Yup time to start stocking the bunkers


[edit on 6-6-2007 by zorgon]

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.

Here's Venus in visible light, as photograph by Galileo:



Notice the lack of detail compared to the colorized image.

[edit on 6-6-2007 by nataylor]

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

Originally posted by Rilence
They make a lot of sense to 99.9% of us on here

We must be really getting to them now, eh John? They have resorted to deliberate misinformation and making wild claims.

Its funny actually Rilence... I needed a good laugh this morning. It sure goes a long way to show your credibility and ability to do unbiased research!

Originally posted by Rilence
Of course, I'm exaggerating the % considerably, just as you and quite a few others on this and other threads have been guilty of...

Umm I think you are confused...You deliberately posted knowingly false data, not an exaggeration... we post evidence with links and add an explanation of what we believe it represents... not the same at all

Taking select photos and data and treating it as gospel...Perhaps I'm trying to prove a point in a roundabout way ?

And what is wrong with taking select photos? It would be stupid to take just any photo. I select photos that best show what I am talking about, for example the image of Mars I finally found and posted in the Moon thread... Even ArMaP declined his usual "I see nothing but rocks.." comment and it has so far been ignored by our skeptics...

I refer to this one...



MSSS Image full gif

And to get back to Venus... this Russian image has an interesting Rectangular area on it...




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]

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

Originally posted by Rilence
They make a lot of sense to 99.9% of us on here

We must be really getting to them now, eh John? They have resorted to deliberate misinformation and making wild claims.

Its funny actually Rilence... I needed a good laugh this morning. It sure goes a long way to show your credibility and ability to do unbiased research!

Originally posted by Rilence
Of course, I'm exaggerating the % considerably, just as you and quite a few others on this and other threads have been guilty of...

Umm I think you are confused...You deliberately posted knowingly false data, not an exaggeration... we post evidence with links and add an explanation of what we believe it represents... not the same at all

Taking select photos and data and treating it as gospel...Perhaps I'm trying to prove a point in a roundabout way ?

And what is wrong with taking select photos? It would be stupid to take just any photo. I select photos that best show what I am talking about, for example the image of Mars I finally found and posted in the Moon thread... Even ArMaP declined his usual "I see nothing but rocks.." comment and it has so far been ignored by our skeptics...

I refer to this one...



MSSS Image full gif


[edit on 7-6-2007 by zorgon]

A Martian "Harbor" ...


Outlined/Remarked:

This one has the "big hole/circle"







[edit on 7-6-2007 by Orion437]

[edit on 7-6-2007 by Orion437]

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...