It's my limited understanding or perhaps allusion that science is all about discovering and learning new things, about learning from others and subsequently understanding the possibilities, then subsequently learning from ones mistakes as well as from others testing the probabilities with whatever WMD they've got at hand.
Let's say we entirely drop the probability consideration and otherwise focus ourselves just upon the possibility aspects, somewhat like "cold-fusion" except this time it's seriously hotter than hell.
Lets further narrow our criteria down to my having to select 10% of what I happen to believe is more likely artificial than not, as being all that you might consider for the moment.
Even though there's at least a dozen such worthy patterns that for more than 2two and a half years looked a whole lot more artificial than not to this village idiot, lets say we're down to a maximum selection of 10 items and, 10% of that leaves us with but one isolated aspect or attribute worth covering.
Lets further stipulate that I've had to select upon one of the least complex of those patterns, such as the bridge, as for being the focus of this discussion.
Since this first part is about what's possible, the fact that I could have been wrong or mentally skewed in my assessment of the other 9 items, thereby 90% incorrect is certainly another possibility and the foundation of question No.1
1) does the other 90%, if entirely in error, in any way disqualify upon our discussing this 10% (bridge) consideration?
2) If in fact I'm the one and only soul on Earth suggesting this is more likely a bridge rather than a "rille wrinkle" or some other unusual formation (natural or otherwise), is this representing any philosophical, religious, political and/or social dilemma for you?
3) If I'm more inclined to believe this bridge issue is highly unlikely as for being anything naturally formed, do you have a problem with that?
4) If this bridge is spanning a sufficiently wide rille/canyon, so as to exclude, by a fairly wide margin, all otherwise known and thereby all other recorded natural occurrences, do you have any problem with that pretext?
5) If the bridge observational signature being so unusually flat (unarched) is of any further indication of it being more likely artificial than not, then what if any catch that you would disagree upon?
6) Are there any such (1+km) recorded natural bridges formed elsewhere without noticeable arch?
7) Can you contribute by any conjecture in geology that would have created such a natural bridge of such stature (remembering that the mountanious terrain channel/canyon is extremely steep and rigged)?
8) Are there any natural bridges (even relatively short ones) left standing that are nearly flat or unarched, and if so do we have an SAR image of such?
9) If there were to be a rather noticeable yet unnatural looking excavated roadbed associated, is this another pattern otherwise to be found anywhere in nature associated with any sort of bridging attribute?
10) If there were multiple and fairly large quarry looking sites situated nearby, of appropriate scale, would this not include a possible resource of roadbed and structural bridge material?
11) is it possible the Magellan imaging and associated image file could have been corrupted in such a selective manner, so that at only this location while depicting the natural terrain that's surrounding and throughout the site as being acceptable Venus terrain would still have somehow given cause to believe there'd be any reason whatsoever to think such artificial looking items were merely those of previously unrecognized errors?
12) In orderr to even support a bridge conjecture; is it probable that some other life (microbe or otherwise) existed pre-greenhouse?
13) is it probable that the transition from 300ºK to 720ºK took at least hundreds if not thousands of years instead of millions?
14) is it probable that a planet like Venus had sufficient natural energy resources?
15) is it probable that some of those resources have been altered but otherwise remain available today?
16) with said energy, isn't it probable that other life could have managed in spite of our inability to reason why or even how?
17) with such a pre-greenhouse bridge in place, isn't it probable that survivors would have tried every trick in their book to have survived?
18) is it probable or not that such tough evolution and/or determination would have included or excluded other technologies such as radio?
19) is it probable that those responsible for the authority of overseeing the Magellan images missed this discovery nearly 13 years ago?
20) is it probable that others within and associated with NASA have a great deal of their reputations and benefits at risk, even if only this 10% turns out being more likely artificial than not?
Now then, you and I know that I could press on and on, as for certain I've got loads of questions and since I've become sort of the resident village idiot lose cannon, I've had tp occupy my limited resources towards developing some fairly skewed ideas of my own. Fortunately, my mistakes and/or running amuck isn't loaded with any cold-war cloak and dagger, ulterior motives nor capable of doing harm onto others unless it's something they've brought upon themselves.
If you've got better ideas and of expertise as well as absolutely anything by which to back those ideas up, I'm interested in posting to such, even if it's going against the grain of what I'm thinking is more likely artificial than not, or as to how such items could have been formed naturally if not otherwise created so as to have been utilized in such a hot and nastly place as Venus.
Ideas and solutions at hand
Besides all of the observational accomplishments of my connecting those dots or pixels to the best of my abilities, I've taken valuable time and focus away from the primary research in order to delve into other related and even somewhat unrelated matters, in order to best understand why all of the unexpected difficulties with sharing this little discovery, along with my interest in resolving difficulties on behalf of so many others that seem so emotionally impaired and/or intellectually unable to either function outside their collective or simply participate towards resolving truths on their own, of accepting by way of offering any plausible solution(s) or work-arounds as an alternative point of view, if need be in spite of the status quo facts, such as the following few topics;
a) Why not apply nondistructive interplanetary visual communications, or at least near UV into the 350 nm spectrum?
b) I believe there's all sorts of known creatures communicating primarly by way of visual packets, including humans, and especialy nocturnals seem to have the advantage.
c) Quantum binary packet communications involves many segments of a given spectrum, and/or it involves a composite of those binary segments and analog relationships that's nearly infinitive in throughput. A quantum binary packet signal can simultaneously carry terra-bites of complex machine/Linux code as well as offering sufficiently low baud rates that's suitable for biological life to respond to.
c) Rigid airships of Venus are not breaching the known laws of physics. Such airships and of the alloys necessary to construct them are most likely to have existed and, there's absolutely no basis whatsoever to think that they are not existing today, technically capable of cruising sufficiently above those cool nighttime clouds of Venus.
d) Vacuum distilling out pure H2O from highly acidic nighttime clouds is not even rocket science, hardly physics-101.
e) Vertical pressure and thermal differential kinetics for generating great amount of energy should not have been an issue for Venus, unless you're one of those not knowing what to do with all the energy produced.
f) Various conversions, starting off with CO2-->CO/O2 then of creating H2O2 from H2SO4 in order to effectively store H20, as well as for extracting great volumes of H2 on demand, all of this is within the realm of accepted physics as well as by way of existing and well documented technology, though oddly it's somehow being excluded from anything involving Venus, yet entirely permissive for Earth and even the likes of irradiated and frozen to death Mars.
g) H202 or even H2 is not lethal nor even the least bit testy on Venus, not the least bit explosive nor even of a burning consideration for that mostly CO2 rich environment, though extracting CO and O2 is certainly a worthy combination to utilize as is, or better off to mix with either H2O2 or that of sufficiently compressed H2 (though H2 is quite a valuable substance for Venus).
h) Off-topic; Those Boeing 747 center fuel tanks that somehow manage to blow thenselves up all the time (even though there's insufficient O2 within that tank to cause not more than an extremely fuel rich burn), those tanks could have easily been flooded with free CO2 that's produced onboard in great surplus abundance. Call this one my "CO2 tank flooding or CO2/TF" at near zero cost, at near zero weight impact, so thereby I guess that'll never happen, although field testing of stinger like mid-section targetting technology will continue.
i) Attempting to understand the laser beam capability and thereby overall performance potential of a good laser cannon for interpanitary communications can become a lethal quest, or another OOPS depending upon how you're looking at it.
j) Off-topic; Calibrating star-wars ABL tracking and laser/thermal optics performance by utilizing the benefit of a large number of thermal sensors and of their live down-link data feed, such as from the shuttle COLUMBIA, was not only technically possible but highly probable, especially since Boeing/TRW Phantom Works had all the right keys of NSA/DoD authority and decryption codes.
k) Space radiation is humanly tolerable for a given timeline, though getting sufficient shield density into orbit, not to mention headed topwards another planet or moon is CO2 production intensive, risky and downright spendy, not to mention the secondary radiation aspects that's greatly compounding upon what a solar minimum or of any lull in between solar irradiation spikes is having to offer.
L) Spending any amount of time in free space is going to be improved upon by being situated at L2, especially Venus L2 because, there's simply a whole lot more substance in between yourself and the sun, such as a good sized planet, thus much less direct solar exposure and, even lesser exposure if a companion rock or good sized ice ball can be persuaded to reside between yourself and the planet.
m) Off-topic; According to Mr Jay Windley (radiation techno wizard), we need not fear space, especially that of our own moon because, not only is there a mere 10 mrem/day involved with the likes of shielded space travel outside the Van Allen zone of death but, bone dry clumping lunar soil is almost entirely non-reactive to solar/cosmic radiation, thereby little if any secondary radiation has become a bloody cash cow of the holy grail of radiation shield material that's just sitting all over the freaking place, and it's free for the picking, it's already situated in orbit and we have long had the expertise and technology all along as to obtain any amounts of that highly illumination reflective stuff any time we see fit, whereas 0.1 meter worth (34.1 g/cm2) should be way more than enough to fend off whatever the sun has to offer.
n) If you happen believe in any of the above (m), then I'm no longer the king of village idiots, as you are.
Sorry mostly about the m) and n) statements above, as my medications must have run down, plus I'm losing consciousness as I type.
Should you'd like to be sharing something of worth, thereby most likely correcting any number of my misunderstandings, that's fine and dandy, as I've said, I'll post credits for specific information and/or admire your expertise that's most likely far superior to anything I've got to offer.