Venus; ashen light as a faint glow occasionally observed on the dark side of Venus, was first reported by Riccioli in 1643.

Ever since then (360 years and counting), it seems as though nearly all natural forms of such illumination have been ruled out, at least for the past 360 years and counting there's not been a viable alternative to those illuminations being other than artificially generated.

Venus 'Ashen Light' seen! by; Dave Lillis
"I'm really starting to doubt myself here,!!!!
What I saw DID look like it had a very dark purple hue to it !!!!
The time I saw it was at 22.20, the sky was fairly dark at that stage., I have images of the planet at this stage through my 12" using the webcam, and I noticed no trace at the time of any illumination to hint at ashen lights, but then again I wasnt looking for it as I convinced myself that it was an "eye" illusion."

That reported "very dark purple hue" is perhaps within the 425 nm spectrum that's best suited at taking advantage of the opacity of them acidic clouds, and that's a fact. At least of anything below 450 nm isn't all that much in competition with earthshine.

Utilizing a band-pass filter of 400~450 nm should offer the most bang for the buck/euro, although a more specific filter should only improve upon those observations, and of a recording whatever might be encoded within that spectrum of photons might be even a little more interesting, to say the least.

However folks, expecting any of these pretentious (NASA moderated) astronomy types to place their warm and fuzzy stamp of approval upon the notion that Venus could be harboring other life NOT as we know it, apparently this isn't an option, though of their having humanity wasting more decades and trillions of dollars is oddly worth every penny, especially if those pennies are going into their institution or better yet into their own pocket, meanwhile the polluting of mother Earth and of the pillaging for extracting energy resources to a fairlywell, along with all of the collateral carnage, is just fine and dandy.

God forbid that we should consider upon the obvious prospects or perhaps fact of the matter that Venus isn't quite so darn hot and nasty, nor insisting that of sufficiently smart folks couldn't have managed to have coexisted in spite of our arrogance, greed and utter stupidity.

Ashen lights of Venus have been simply too well noticed, and of various radio astronomy and by way of numerous other instruments (other than photon detections) have not established upon any other natural source for their existence. That's sort of physics duh-101 for those illuminations being of pure photons which thereby obviously had to be created from the surface or perhaps from aboard some high flying rigid airship cruising quite safely and calm just below those nasty clouds.

The rigid airship notion as for providing a suitable platform by which to operate at perhaps 25+km shouldn't be ruled out. Even the notion of such rigid airships being capable of their cruising above them relatively cool nighttime clouds isn't outside the box of accepted physics-101.

BTW; I have another page or two to offer, but I do need and would appreciate your input:
guthvenus.tripod.com/illumination-spots-02.htm
guthvenus.tripod.com/earthshine-moonshine.htm
guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-hot-spots.htm

Sorry if some of you're devout pro-NASA or more unfortunately a pro-Apollo sport, much like I was as prior to more than three years ago, thoroughly snookered to the hilt and all, and then some.

In order to help demonstrate that this Venus "ashen light" could have been artificially produced, I've run off some preliminary numbers that shouldn't surprise you, unless you're as snookered and thereby as dumbfounded as most Americans, especially of those of our pro-Apollo or bust cult, and I'm certain that your math is even better than mine, as well as for uncovering the capable candela capability of xenon/mercury lighting cannons that'll more than accommodate the task at hand.

If we'd started out with using a 500 meter diameter of illumination source, and if that source were initially focused to 1°, this is what we should expect such technology application to obtain as for transmitting into and subsequently getting photons through those clouds.

Illumination source elevation: 5 km
Illumination source diameter: 500 meters
Raw illumination divergence: 1°
Cloud bottom elevation at roughly: 50 km
Cloud density/thickness: 20 km
Illuminated zone/diameter upon cloud bottom: 1.286 km

Illuminated zone/diameter upon cloud tops:
At zero further divergence: 1.635 km
At +/- 45° divergence: 11.63 km
At +/- 60° divergence: 18.93 km
At +/- 75° divergence: 38.73 km
At +/- 80° divergence: 57.59 km
At +/- 85° divergence: 110.348 km
At +/- 90° divergence: 498.980 km

Now then, this is where physics-101 or perhaps duh-101 comes into account, in that I'd previously estimated the illuminated zone of the heath4.jpg (by; Alan HEATH [Nottingham,UK]) being 500 km in diameter, and now that I've applied some further math in order to best identify what a reasonably focused beam of xenon/mercury photons striking the bottom of them clouds might have in fact diffused out to that zone of perhaps at most 500 km, that is unless the source were of an even larger diameter and/or of greater divergence to start off with.

The maximum parabolic diameter that I might otherwise suggest upon is 1000 meters, although that only adds another 0.5 km to the overall end result, which is 0.1%. Thereby a larger diameter of source might only be necessary for improving the focus, of which due to the tremendous amount of divergence and/or diffusion created by them clouds makes the need as for anything in excess of a km parabolic source somewhat unnecessary, though perhaps a bit more photon delivery efficient, which would be a factor if there were a shortage of energy by which to drive such an illumination. Although, upon Venus there's any but a shortage of energy.

Because the bulk of the atmospheric suspended acid is in fact in a transparent droplet form (more spherical droplets than not) rather than crystal, as such the opacity of such a cloud barrier would not likely fall below 10%, in fact it would be just as likely that a window of 25% opacity for the 400~450 nm spectrum would exist, thus as much as 25% of those original photons will manage to illuminate through the clouds to a point where others as snookered and arrogant as far too many Earth humans might notice.

These ongoing observations of such illuminations within the Venus seasons of daytime, as well as for those noticed of their Venus season of nighttime is in fact the utmost unusual of all observed topics among all other observed planets, at least as far as this facet being most likely artificial than not. That combined with the rather obvious notations I've made for more than three years, of there being significant numbers of massive structures, including a few complex reservoirs, a modified surface feature looking very much as a sizable tarmac, but then there's also a rather substantial rigid airship parked partially into it's hanger or storage bay, with a couple of rows of spherical storage tanks recessed into the landscape (gees folks, I wounder how the hell mother nature managed to accomplish all of that?) along with creating a rational township like community, having of all things a somewhat central parabolic item of good diameter, and of that parabolic item having a central spire or tower is sort of a dead giveaway. The fact that there's clearly a nearby suspension bridge that's spanning a rather substantial canyon/rille, along with all sorts of other interesting items of a more likely artificial nature than not, all of this is apparently asking of our crack NASA moderated observers that have been opposing essentially everything under the sun, for that individual to be telling us we need to ignore absolutely all there is, including ignoring and/or skewing the laws of physics, and not to even mention our having to avoid laws of common sense.

Good grief folks; if there's another planet under observation that offers even 1% as much to work with, perhaps we should be doing something about it. As not even from all that we've obtained from Mars is worth 1% of what's been discovered about Venus, and that a fact.

If you can provide other numbers for those "ashen lights", such as their lumens, watts/m2 or photons/m2 and of the peak spectrum involved, and/or anything further upon the topic of "earthshine", or of what any good sort of xenon/mercury illumination cannon or laser might deliver, I'd be interested in including that sort of data, or at least including a link into your research.

There's also a good side topic of interplanetary quantum packets, a worth of photon modulation that'll be sure to knock your shocks off.

Oh God, not this nut.......

Brian

And your problem is?

What part about "the truth and nothing but the truth" don't you agree whth?

Have you absolutely nothing whatsoever of specific worth to contribute on behalf of humanity?

Are those "Ashen Lights" just some figment of imagination by thousands of honest astronomers?

If those "ashen lights" are simply not of an illusion, then what the heck are they?

Or, are you calling the British Astronomical Association(BAA) and of others what I think your are?

If I surched for "Brian O'Halloran", what sort of replies and/or perhaps disinformation have you been offering?

Since there's always going to be nice folks like "Brian O'Halloran" that feel they haven't been snookered nor are they the least bit dumbfounded by all there is. Perhaps that's because they already know all there is to know, at least they most often seem to be suggesting such by giving their "thumbs down" as to what I have to offer.

On the other hand, if the likes of Brian O'Halloran or others like him are obtaining terrific images of Venus, especially of the Venus season of nighttime, and would like to share those with the world, I'd certainly offer them all the support and credits they deserve, way more so than our NASA would ever accomplish.

Since the "ashen lights" are not continuous, but worth perhaps a minute or so per illumination, and of that being in the 400~450 nm spectrum, perhaps the chances of folks like Brian O'Halloran that are obviously "pro-mainstream status quo" will simply not find the time day or night as to offer humanity much of anything. If on the other hand he should manage to image one of those ashen light events, and better yet if there were a sufficiently high-speed scan and/or live spectrum recording as to detecting if there's any hidden code within, then by all means I'd suck-up to the likes Brian O'Halloran, though I'm not all that certain if he'd appreciate that, even if it meant a million dollar/euro bonus.

God, you're a touchy bugger, aren't you!

I note you're the Brad Guth who spouts all that 'there's alien civilisations on Venus' claptrap on Usenet, clogging up various fine sci.astro and sci.space newsgroups with babble. Given your rep, a good healthy dose of moderation on this group wouldn't go amiss.... For those who haven't checked out the infamous Brad before, visit www.geocities.com/bradguth

And for the record, I'm a longstanding member of the BAA - and indeed, they'd be pretty horrified to be associated with someone so obviously short of a few screws Don't bother replying to me Brad, 'cos I won't be replying to you!

Clear skies.

Brian

Hi All,
Just so people dont think I've completely lost it,
I'm convinced that this whole "Ashen Lights" thing is an optical illusion.

And even if it does exist, there's more chance of it been caused by the sodium lights in Limerick then by a civilisation on Venus !!!!


On a serious note
I DO NOT LIKE BEEN QUOTED IN ANY POST IN A MANNER THAT LOOKS LIKE I SUPPORT THE IDEA OF LIFE ON VENUS. GET REAL !!!!!

AND
I've taken many images of Venus over the last 5 months, IF I cought a pic that looked like there were "Ashen lights" on it, I would put it on this site, in the interest of progressing SCIENCE, because thats all I'm interested in here.!!!!

Hey everybody,

Things seem to be getting a bit out of hand here and while it's not my place to reign this in (I'm the moderator of the busy, happening, ten posts an aeon, Double and Variable star forum) I do think we need to calm down.

Brad, you've obviously got a lot of time on your hands but can I respectfully ask you to avoid sending such long posts. Feel free to express your views, but please do so briefly. Try to stick rigidly to the topic being discussed, and if you have a point that you feel needs to be expanded, then post a url or suchlike where people can learn more. You, and anyone else, are welcome at irishastronomy.org, but we must respect the views of everyone. People don't come here to read diatribes or be preached to. This may provide you with an opportubnity for discussion, not conversion.

Brian, rock on.

Not so sure about life on Venus,........but certainly lots of life here tonight!!!

Brian, rock on.

Cheers Shane, I try!

Sorry this is another long post. In the future if and when I'm offered a simple inquiry, I'll reply just upon that and little if anything other. Although, since there seems to be more than just nice folks objecting to the notion of other life, I feel the need to express upon a few details that may get a wee bit off topic, but intended to point out that I'm not the one and only village idiot that has made mistakes.

Ashen Light upon Venus is NOT actually earthshine, whereas earthshine upon the moon is ashen light. I thereby believe the title "Ashen Light" was something typically NASA and intentionally bogus.

I've noticed that "Brian O'Halloran" isn't accepting email, nor are most other folks objecting to what I have to offer, or of what anyone has to offer that's the least bit outside the mainstream box, thus perhaps there's a perfectly good reason why that's the case, as obviously any honest sort of person would have at least set up a junk email account, although with some stealth internet hacking that would unfortunately reveil their true identity.

I can't imagine the likes of NASA/NSA/DoD not having their mole(s) and/or borg(s) situated within this or any other group. At least if I were running the likes of our NASA or any part of NSA/DoD, I'd certainly have my two cents worth implanted within every group that could possibly influence others against what I'd care to have the public believing in, and that goes for religious orders and any other form of sponsored cult.

Now that's I've irreverently upset the "space time continuum" among all those of the pro-NASA and pro-Apollo or bust, as well as pro cold-war folks that wouldn't have changed a darn thing even if they could, as quite possibly we can start humanity all over by letting those nasty sorts of happenings go by the wayside, while the rest of humanity deals with those nice Cathar lizard folk of Venus. Oops, there I go again, sorry about that little rant of morality.

If you'd care to focus upon the topic at hand, that being those "ashen lights of Venus" that so far (360 years and counting) has offered absolutely no natural cause for their existence, but otherwise certainly could been artificially created, as then perhaps I'll not have to venture myself into the space toilet of life in order to reopen those nasty cold-war wounds, which simply don't seem to be healing no matters how much hype, spin and dog-wagging is utilized.

Obviously the laws of physics have been on my side of this equation from the very get-go, even though I've had to learn such things on the need-to-know basis ever since I uncovered what's most likely artificial about Venus, thus more ET than not. From all that I've learned in spite of all the "nondisclosure" and "need to know" is that the greater body of astrophysics could and should have accomplished the resolving of this discovery as of 13 years ago, if not before, as there's been no new physics related to photons, at least not as for creating those "ashen lights", nor as to the notions of sufficiently evolved and obviously a species a whole lot smarter about surviving that are clearly responsible for making those significant structures on Venus, and of being smarter than humans doesn't suggest any requirement for radio, but much like the 99.9% of human history, they do need light; guthvenus.tripod.com/radio-maybe.htm

Sirius photons:
Speaking of photons and that of other life on Venus; we're not necessarily talking about millions of folks, but certainly tens of thousands could be there, or merely of individuals working an outpost on behalf of Sirius/abc (once upon a time Venus could have been Sirius/c), that which we may not be seeing the likes of Sirius/ab up close for another 65,000 years, and I supposed you think it's hot now. Just wait until our solar system obtains the Full Monty worth of Sirius 375 nm illumination, just as those photons have energised the photosynthesis cycle in the past, of encounters which lasted for some 20,000 years as we traveled to within 0.1 light year which infused nearly a 50% reduction into the natural order of CO2 and thawed out the likes of Mars and so forth. Of course the source of UV/a being of Sirius is my best guestimate, as there's seemingly none other offering such a horrific resource of photons that could have induced such a well recorded cycle in the level of natural CO2, although if you have some alternative notion, I'd like to hear about it.

www.spacecannon.it/newsdetail.asp?ID=19&lingua=english
www.spacecannon.it/newsdetail.asp?ID=74&lingua=english
The 9/11 site as outfitted with a number of 7 kw cannons shows various examples of the intensity that's obtainable per commercial cannon fixture, although the atmosphere below them Venus clouds isn't nearly as polled as that of Earth. Pollution and subsequent global warming has shifted Earth's albedo from nearly 50% down to 30%, and that's a fact directly related to what humans have managed to accomplish much of in just the past century.

BTW; if those illumination cannons were outfitted with aluminum reflectors instead of their traditional Nickel-Rhodium coating, and if a little mercury were introduced into the xenon lamp, as such there'd be 20% more focused photons and of that a whole lot more of those towards the 400~450 nm spectrum.

Of course, a full blown parabolic CO2 laser cannon or open searchlight that's capable of being operated in the ambient environment of Venus should function quite nicely at replacing the likes of otherwise hard-to-get xenon, although of the far-IR (9000~11000 nm) that's not offering the best prospect for transmitting through them clouds, and obviously remaining invisible to most astronomers, though as for utilizing the CO2 as merely the carrier wave for a mixture or element of mercury should easily shift that towards the near-UV.

Hot and absolutely bone dry CO2/N2 offers a darn good insulator, of which those free CO2/N2 atoms can be excited, along with any number of interesting elements introduced into this gas matrix as to obtaining the desired spectrum, whereas the metallic/conductive element of whatever the discharge electrodes are constructed of will obviously introduce a good number of the necessary properties for obtaining a given spectrum, in much the same manner as with the carbon arc within the atmosphere of Earth. Besides the obviously consideration for using carbon electrodes, there's any number of likely elements available on Venus for this task. So, once again, this is not even rocket science.

Focusing all of this energy into a tidy beam of less than 1°:
Essentially a parabolic mirror comprised of UV grade fused silica retro-reflectors can deliver quite a nicely focused beam of almost any desired spectrum, as the retro-reflectors themselves can also be of a band-pass nature (Dichros or a combination of long-pass filters and short-pass filters, or use of interference filters), although the near-UV spectrum is perhaps best accommodated by a combination of the surface reflective nature plus that of the retro-reflective aspects of what silica based optical elements can achieve, as for creating the highly efficient mirror like properties. Since the energy of 425~450 nm isn't going to be greatly absorbed by the silica retro-reflector, as for a parabolic surface element it seems the notion of using such retro-reflectors as to obtaining a narrow beam as possible isn't out of the question, and it certainly isn't outside of physics-101.

As I've explained before; a projected 1° beam of most any source diameter should have yielded roughly a 500 km spot or zone of illumination as to be seen by Earth, exactly as the diffusion and/or photon scatter would have been created from having to get through 20 km worth of clouds should have created. Such an illumination of good duration was recorded in the heath4.jpg simply is NOT earthshine, nor was this display hardly any event of lightning.
BAA: www.julianbaum.co.uk/BAA_MV/MVVenus.html
My 2X enlargement: guthvenus.tripod.com/images2/heath4-x2.jpg

Although this following report is suggesting a factor of lightning as the sole cause of the "ashen light", there's no apparent physics as to backing up the natural method of such energy being created and/or sustained for the duration of 30/sec and as focused and/or of the spectrum as the observed, as such illuminations having been recorded have been of considerably greater than a few seconds, and besides all of that, of those acidic Venus clouds (unlike those of Earth) are quite electrolytic (electron conductive) and I believe unlikely to build any hot-spot of sufficient potential and duration of discharge. www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/evidence/

BTW: even within 1/30 of a second, easily 30 terabytes of data can be encoded if we're talking about a format of quantum or qubit communications, or certainly of at least a few common binary packets are within the realm of physical modulation.

I can't imagine the likes of NASA/NSA/DoD not having their mole(s) and/or borg(s) situated within this or any other group.

Okay, I'll admit it. I am actually a member of a shadowy international group who are intentionally misleading the general public, most of whom cannot recognise Venus, even when it is as bright as it has been recently, and who have never even heard of Ashen Light.

"Brian O'Halloran" (the English teacher in me screams in agony at the sight of those quotation marks) may not be accepting mail, but the IFAS bulletin board is accepting posts on this topic. Please do not post any more long, rambling and preachy posts such as the previous. This is not really the place to discuss these topics.

Or to put it another way; well done, you've persuaded us all. You can stop now.

Please do not post any more long, rambling and preachy posts such as the previous. This is not really the place to discuss these topics.

I agree (as moderaor). We all have your website addresses and I'm sure anyone who wishes to correspond with you further will do so. So please lets move away from the long posts and restating established positions.

Cheers,
~Al

While on the subject of all this fruit-cake-ology about Venus, check out
www.badastronomy.com
Theres also a bulliten board on the website.

There you'll find discussion on alot of the non-logical astro ideas out there.
The author (of that website) has an article in Mays issue of Sky and Telescope.
"A Commonsense Guide to Cosmic Nonscense"

It seems that I need to offer this topic at one line at a time, as though my dyslexic talent of too many thoughts and too-many words, plus ample usage of those nasty quotation marks, are enough to cause folks to "scream in agony" needs to be set aside. Perhaps I should just lump everything into one tightly worded NASA approved/scripted paragraph that's intended to say absolutely nothing but to undermine everything, like certain folks at uplink.space.com that have said much without their issuing a single specific upon Venus or the moon, or provided only their opposition upon any number of topics I've been interested in, though again without issuing any specific data.

Question, and please take notice of the *if artificial* lead in.

1) If artificial; what methods could be causing the sorts of illumination spots upon Venus?

Another question from a (certified by Dave Lillis) "fruit-cake-ology" expert.
BTW; not everything at your badastronomy.com is bad, it's just not your mainstream status quo. Like absolutely anything associated with our moon is automatically classified as "badastronomy" unless it had been moderated to death by lord NASA/Apollo, and thereby NOT a challenge.

Second question upon Venus lights or hot-spots;

2) what is the output duration or typical range/dwell for these Venus illuminations spots?

Our friend may just be from Venus and as he is possibly the only life form there, he feels it necessary to have a bad attitude towards us miserable ignorant earthlings. I have enjoyed this website immensely even though I do not contribute very much. However this life form should go elsewhere or learn to be civil and mannerly to other users of this site. as his manner and behavour is unacceptable to this civilised earthling.
No one on this site is afraid of the truth but it is not necessary for anyone to invade this site with such long winded essays that would be better aired on oth er sites where users are accepting of such documents. I hope this new life form will enjoy its time with us and will get to know us a bit better and learn that we are very friendly creatures. Thanking all of the members of this site for the enjoyment and information you have provided for me and I hope it can continue into the future

Go away for a weekend, and look what happens

Mind you, how come I'm suddenly "Brian O'Halloran"? Am I suddenly an alias? :o

"Go away for a weekend, and look what happens"

So far all that I've gotten is your perfectly good notion of some highly unusual and symmetrical clouds on Venus that somehow got their horrific illumination from all angles.

You must have been one of those nice Apollo photo crew members, holding up those artificial xenon illumination sources and/or reflective boards in order to create those multiple shadow angles upon the moon, and of otherwise creating those horrific hot-spots upon its clumping dirt that's recently become "retro-reflective" as according to Apollohoax wizard Bob B.

Other than all of that lunar illumination consideration, I'm actually giving this big and tall cloud thing a bit of consideration, although perhaps a sufficient beam of photon energy including some IR spectrum from below could certainly have been inducing that sort of cloud formation, as it takes thermal energy as to move that sort of cloud density. Perhaps one of those hot and nasty volcanos could have done the trick.

BTW; I do not believe those illumination events lasted for hours or even minutes on end, as would clouds.

1) If artificial; what methods could be causing the sorts of illumination spots upon Venus?

2) what is the output duration or typical range/dwell for these Venus illuminations spots?

"Go away for a weekend, and look what happens"


You must have been one of those nice Apollo photo crew members, holding up those artificial xenon illumination sources and/or reflective boards in order to create those multiple shadow angles upon the moon, and of otherwise creating those horrific hot-spots upon its clumping dirt that's recently become "retro-reflective" as according to Apollohoax wizard Bob B.

What on Earth does this have to do with Apollo? Brad, you're finally losing it......

Brian

In case you haven't noticed, I frequently need to edit and utilize alalogies to help myself and perhaps a few others deal with what I see as doable, as opposed to the mainstream status quo stipulating otherwise.

I'm one of those fools that believes nothing is doable if the truth can NOT be told.

This topic of "Ashen Lights = other life on Venus, NOT as we know it" should have absolutely nothing to do with anything Apollo, other than the cold-war fact that humanity has blown away trillions of bucks, literally exterminated millions of folks needlessly, and subsequently wasted decades of resources and talents, and there's still an old-guard of those Apollo or bust folks that's need to be cared for until they and all of their relatives die off, and we have created several new generations of folks educated by the likes of our resident warlord "high standards and accountability" that can't add up 2 + 2, don't understand hydrogen, are snookered and/or scared to death over nuclear energy and so forth, believing in one dog-wagging lie after another, to the point of having our country and seemingly half the world running amuck in Iraq, and of far worse things.

Other than all of that, and of a few dozen other related collateral and carnage factors, plus a serious load of skewed physics related to supporting those laser photons bouncing off the moon, there's not all that much Apollo that should relate to photons, Venus, or even per my LSE-CM/ISS that I've been ranting upon for more than a couple of years worth.

BTW; we should have had a robotic lunar based laser cannon for interplanetary communications as of decades ago, that plus a few of those terrific resolution VLA-SAR image aperture receiving modules to boot.

Brad, for the last time - Venus is a dead rock (biologically dead, though geologically probably active), there is certainly no intelligent life there. This is underpinned by 40 years of peer-reviewed data, collected by the Russians in particular, by NASA probes, along with ground based observations from many countries - while not a planetary astronomer, I rather suspect the weight of evidence is on the side of the accepeted view of Venus rather than yours. You on the other hand base your entire hypotheses on conjecture - you have absolutely nothing solid to base any of your arguments, be it Venus or this rather strange fixation you have with Sirius. Nothing that you've provided here is going to change my opinion - or indeed anyone else's on this board, I suspect. As a matter of interest, have you tried submitting your research to one of the peer-reviewed joiurnals that deal with planetary geology or SETI? If so, I'd love to see the responses you got.....

I have no particular desire to spend my days in a flame war with you - if you have particular issues with me, then keep it off-board. Indeed, my wish is for this board to return to what it is intended to provide - a forum for astronomers to discuss the night sky/astronomy in general and to interact with each other, and not as a forum for Venus/Sirius ET discussions and their fabulous civilisation. Considering the less-than-welcoming response you've received here, I humbly suggest you find a forum that's more receptive to your rather 'unique' views. I will no longer publically respond to your posts, if you wish to continue this, contact me off-board via PM.

Brian

ok I'm locking this thread since I do not believe anything constructive can come of it.

For those wishing to investigate in a serious manner the properties of venus based on science rather than speculation please refer to, and cite in any further threads the relavent scientific papers adsabs.harvard.edu/physics_service.html or at least data from the LPI www.lpi.usra.edu/

Any future postings, making fantastic claims or proposing personal theories that are not backed up with peer reviewd data will be deleted.

Also posts scoring above 50 points on math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html will also be deleted.

my wish is for this board to return to what it is intended to provide - a forum for astronomers to discuss the night sky/astronomy in general and to interact with each other, and not as a forum for Venus/Sirius ET discussions and their fabulous civilisation. Considering the less-than-welcoming response you've received here, I humbly suggest you find a forum that's more receptive to your rather 'unique' views.

hear hear

Cheers,
~Al