Re: YouTube ... Former Legislator Makes Statement on Un-Released Eisenhower Brief.

On May 19, 9:14�pm, Sir Gilligan Horry <G...@ga7rm5er.com> wrote:

YouTube ... Former Legislator Makes Statement on Un-Released
Eisenhower Brief.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrK2YgfjnHo

Plus a few more years ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evmfC6X0vbw

________________


It seems the perpetual naysayers (usually pretend-Atheist as stealth
bible thumpers of the politically correct ZNR kind) fail to get the
greater gist of this topic, at least not nearly as proficient as they
topic/author stalk and proceed with all their collective might to
naysay traumatize and/or terminate the creditability of others,
especially as pertaining to any ET related or truth/revision risky
topics.

If we eventually get our space travel act together and subsequently
came upon and otherwise snuck up on a populated planet of sufficiently
complex biodiversity, and say you were onboard this mission where
these relatively primitive as well as weird inhabitants were
subsequently discovered as strangely superstitious and/or religious
cult and/or satanic heathen like, as well as openly blood-thirsty and
otherwise at various real and false perpetrated wars with one another
(including putting those of their own kind on a stick for whatever
faith-based PR stunt), as such would you allow yourself or any part of
your mission to be directly noticed or much less captured and
dissected?

If captured, wouldn't you expect your fellow crew and their technology
to do whatever it takes for getting yourself back away from those
heathens that clearly do not have your best interest at heart?

If ETs have their interstellar travel capability nailed, then it
stands to good reason that keeping their technology and themselves
pretty much out of our grip would be a rather basic formality that
shouldn�t be all that insurmountable, especially considering the
likely vast disparity in technology and their better than Einstein
like smarts ahead of us.

However, those having evolved or having been placed on Venus could be
well below our level of intelligence, and not that their adapted
physiology would have to be smarter than a 5th grader to manage.

Brad Guth / Blog and my Google Document info on Venus:
 http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
 http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj

I'm not asking for the stars and the moon, nor expecting of others to
see and interpret everything as I do, as well as I'm not talking about
interpreting items of less than 225 meters resolution.  Everything
I've suggested that isn't perfectly natural has at least more than one
of its dimensions at 225+ meters, and otherwise I�ll accept that 99.9%
of that image is in fact perfectly natural terrain and erosion (just
like here on Earth, because 99.9999% of Earth when viewed at that same
resolution is also going to be interpreted as perfectly natural).

However, Hagar�s intentionally spoof like image contributions do at
least manage to prove that he has had the necessary image viewing
expertise for quite some time.
 http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgfwg98t_218d43c2zcc
 You've even pointed everything out that's funny about the planet
Venus, except for locating my Venusian Waldo or any of his nifty
stuff.

How the hell did our Hagar manage to miss that complex Waldo tarmac,
the nearby Waldo community/township of rational infrastructure, that
rather nifty Waldo bridge, multiple rectangular rock quarry sites and
those substantial Waldo reservoirs?

Most of us have no honest idea of interpreting terrain contour
mapping, much less in aerial 2D format.  You do need to realize that
the Magellan SAR imaging was looking down at roughly 43 degrees, thus
making for interpreting items as nearly 3D worthy, as well as offering
a GFI composite of 36 confirming looks per pixel (means there were few
if any false pixels).
 http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html

If only 0.00001% of any off-world obtained image of another planet or
moon were agreed upon as offering something other than perfectly
natural content (like those small rover tracks on Mars that lead to/
from the little robotic rover itself);  what the hell does that mean
to ZNR approved redneck naysayers like Hagar? (apparently it still
means nothing)

There�s actually lots more to deductively interpret as being
potentially artificial and thus intelligent worthy about the planet
Venus, but I don�t have to take 100% credit for everything because,
unlike the other 99.9% of Usenet/newsgroups,  I�m willing to share as
long as it continually benefits each of us.

NASA Magellan:
 http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/magellan/
 http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/mission_page/VN_Magellan_page1.html
 http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/magellan.html
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magellan_probe

However, to the bogus likes of contributors �buzz� and HVAC that
wouldn�t get caught dead looking at my NASA/Magellan image of Venus,
there�s simply no amount of proof positive nor sufficient physics, not
even if an ET from Venus was stuffed up each of their butts.

Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / �Guth Usenet�