Once again, I'm being asked to prove that I'm some sort of perfect "all knowing" worthy individual, of which I'm not (I'm not even a qualified wizard). I've been asked to expound upon all of my learned expertise, as though I painstakingly acquired such talents from the sorts of wizards respected by those that continually suck-up to the likes of NASA/NSA/DoD agendas. I suppose, if I had the means by which to purchase my education and subsequently place claim based upon acquiring all of my second-hand or most likely third-hand knowledge at best from others, then to be taking credit for whatever I elected to place my name upon seems rather plagiarising to me, but what do I know?

Perhaps some day, one of so many opponents typically opposing other life (NOT as we know it), will actually come across an SAR image of something that's existing on Earth, that's of similar size and of that looking as equally very artificial (appearing functionally structural as well as community like) but qualified as for being purely natural, as I'd surely buy that as well as post it on my front page along with all the credits, as I truly believe such gravity alluding as well as alternative geology based upon some entirely new laws of physics would become world class discoveries in their own right (at least I'd be impressed).

For some further tit for tat benefit upon all of my opponents, I still have a rather fundamental question;  What's your true motivation in denying upon the possibility that other life NOT as we may know of it, managed to survive on Venus, as of at least 13+ years ago?

Seems denying has given more cause and/or proof of ulterior motives in action, of "spin" and subsequent "damage control" running seriously amuck. I mean, what exactly is science and of the exploration of other places all about?

At least initially; I tend to believe the process of discovery requires a whole lot of guess work and/or merely questioning the unknown (this includes making a few mistakes), as why bother further exploring and/or going somewhere if you already know all there is to know?

Trying to find or even apply truth towards making good sense out of "disinformation" is a lost cause, as is struggling as to learn and subsequently discover by way of being on a "need to know" status is hardly a fair alliance of competitive skills, unless cloak and dagger is the ultimate trophy. But, besides being on the winning side, what's all that fair about American politics nor of our recent plan of world/energy domination?

This portion is yet another reply to the likes of George William Herbert;

You obviously know of or sleep with Wizard David Knisely, as he too (like Sgt. Schultz´ and Col. Wilhelm Klink) can't see a darn thing, as well not giving a tinkers damn of any 43 degrees worth of nearly 3D imaging perspective and, Wizard David even wants you to believe that primary channel is not of any canyon but that of an extremely old lava rille (even though there's no lava source nor deposits indicated) which at least is a whole lot more believable than of others proposing a pathetic "rille wrinkle" suggestion upon what's obviously bridging or spanning this very steep canyon like channel. As well this opposition seems delighted that there's absolutely no secondary erosion considerations whatsoever, as for regarding the "fluid arch" consideration (as such an item simply doesn't exist, just like all those complex reservoirs don't exist or the fluid in them, nor is there any tarmac or township and, of anything airship worthy is simply out of the question).

I suppose, like all of my other opposition, you're going to insist that there's no such reservoir issues nor of anything as such being interconnected, nor of those containing anything the least bit fluid or at least mud like. Even though I already know how hot and nasty Venus is, you're going to insist that any other life, irregardless of motivation and/or evolution, is simply not possible.

BTW; there's nothing of any SAR specialty nor of expertise needed with viewing this area in the GIF image format, other than understanding that color or contrast is not an actual representation of any pigment nor illumination aspect.

"no proper university or professional education in image interpretation or SAR"
and
"I strongly suspect you have no proper university or professional education in image interpretation or SAR"

To answer your questions as to my formal status; you don't have to suspect anything, as the answer is NO, I do not have those sorts of textbook only qualifiers, just hands-on expertise with basic radar imaging and of what makes it work, then more recently thousands of hours in digital format and of subsequent photo software, long after decades of conventional (5X7) format photographic expertise, including the B/W film developing and of printing and enlargement phases. In other words, I actually own and utilize such equipment and apply first-hand processing in order to obtain the end result.

As I've already stipulated throughout many pages; as to my knowing what makes SAR so invincible as compared to standard photography, as well as for surpassing any CCD is rather obvious, as there are no "negative" aspects, only the sorts of "proof positive" attributes and of those being absolute "truths" being derived via SAR imaging. In other words; don't even try to suggest that SAR is inferior to any other photo imaging process, as that would be like denying the superior capability of the electron-microscope over optical alternatives (there's simply no contest).

BTW; I must NOT have been very good at photography because, I've never been able to create a "hot spot" illumination in a non-atmospheric environment and of a supposedly nearly asphalt like reflective surface without having to utilize artificial (man made) illumination, nor have I been able to utilize roll film at the extremes of +/- 250 degrees F and, I also seem to have difficulty avoiding extensive film fogging at any 100 mrem dosage, as even a concentration of 10 mrem seems to cause detectable amounts of undesirable radiation exposure, though quite oddly all those Apollo images were somehow radiation free, as well as thermal distortion free and even entirely star free (I don't know how to do that one either). And, don't even get into the 1/6th gravity scaled lunar lander fiasco, as that's worse than a sick joke.

Perhaps you or others can re-explain all of that Apollo stuff (including such low TBI dosage) with some of those nifty doctorate degrees, either that or just hand them over so that we can at least use them fancy diplomas for toilet paper. Of course, I'd accept a few out of all those tens of thousands of photo negatives taken by the Apollo missions, most of which have not been published, so even if I managed to destroy the original negatives, NASA would likely have made certified internegatives, thus no loss, and in fact, such internegatives could have easily been utilized to enhance certain qualities, such as dim stars resurrected by a factor of 100:1 (especially of those residing in the absolute total blackness of the lunar non-sky).

"*no* credible image interpreter is going to claim hard data with 10 pixels."

First of all, of the bridge consideration, I count 12+ if to be including either landing and, these pixels are not mere orphans, as there's a good deal of what's associated that's equally unexplained as for NOT being all that natural. In all, there's perhaps a hundred of those raw pixels closely associated with the bridge consideration alone and, there are so many other aspects of this site which begs for an alternate explanation, other than of our taking your word for it that everything is somehow unexplainable as being entirely natural, as of what should be easily corroborated but, obviously has NOT been accomplished by what's similar on Earth, as well as of so many other areas on Venus, as so much of Venus (99.999%) seems well understood, even by a certified village idiot such as myself, as for being entirely natural. That clearly leaves 0.001% of those pixels (that's globally speaking of  allotting 1 out of every 100,000 pixels) as for being open for an alternative interpretation, especially if there are multiple associations and patterns of relationships that clearly indicate as being a infrastructure of sorts that's depicting better than many townships here on Earth.

Excuse me but, I'm obviously talking about a very small proportion of Venus, even if we're to be including upon all three sites. Thus all of what surrounds the items in question are those aspects being clearly represented as entirely natural, at least as far as you and I can tell, as that's obviously what further distinguishes between that which is most likely natural as compared to what is most likely artificial, as in being man/lizard made.

This argument against the probability of things being artificial has become absolutely pathetic, in that my esteemed opposition can't contribute one iota of another image from any planet (including Earth) that depicts upon anything so intellectually creative looking and as for appearing as organized into a rational community that's the least bit a factor of natural formation nor of any collection of natural formations. Obviously the moral responsibility is not mine to bear, as the burden of proof has been delivered for over two and a half years upon the establishment that's basically sucking up to NASA/NSA/DoD agendas at the drop of a hat, especially all the cloak and dagger aspects that brought us the likes of 9/11..

You see (that's a pun), I'm not only looking at these mere 12+ pixels, but also of what's surrounding those and of what's associating with, which are mostly of some rather significantly and as of entirely expected rough and mountainous as well as steep canyon like terrain, that which seems to equally appear just about everywhere on Venus (I believe that I've pre-qualified that Venus is 99.999% natural), as being quite similar to Earth perhaps remaining only 99% natural. However, it seems those opposing are equally unable to demonstrate with any certainty as to what is all that natural of Venus (I believe that's including yourself), as otherwise they'd have been all over this image as well as my butt with their upstanding SAR images of Earthly things that are looking every bit as artificial but conclusively being entirely natural. Quite oddly, my opposition is still up that proverbial creek (apparently taking yourself for a ride) without a paddle.

Now then, I'll continue to stand by my self invested work/experience history, while I first re-explain that my word is not God, as unlike yourself, I'm not perfect. As you've clearly stated, I make loads of mistakes (unintentional but, don't all village idiots?) and, also unlike my opposition, I'm always learning. Such as, if you should care to establish that such a bridging or rille wrinkle attribute is so absolutely natural and thereby common place, and you further qualified that assessment with Earthly examples of equally spanning features of which you and I know for a fact are entirely natural (because we can go there and see for ourselves), or even of this approach, how about if you supplied the laws of physics and of such geology formations that would have created such an unusually flat and very horizontal and somewhat massively wide spanning bridge, have been created by some explainable form of lava alluding gravity, then either way I'd certainly post such expertise on my index page and insure that you got all the credits.

"What I have a problem with is anyone 'seeing meaning' in fewer pixels of data than it is possible to actually discern anything useful."

Seeing meaning is in the eye of the beholder and, I've elected to behold a stinking bridge (so sue me).

What can I possibly say;  As an observation-ologist, connecting those dots or pixels is what I seem to do best, as I can spot a small rusty nail hidden within 10 m2 of equally mixed brownish grass and dirt. Applying photo software is merely another tool that's still not nearly as good as what my three remaining brain cells are capable of computing and subsequently composing. As I've re-stipulated upon many times; I too see mostly rock and erosion formations or perhaps rille depressions and, that's exactly what's so easily contrasting against what other is not so expectedly natural, at least not by any standard I've become accustomed to nor obviously of what others such as yourself can contribute to purely natural causes.

I've stated that I could identify and/or locate a small rusty nail that was tossed out into a typical mix of brownish grasses and of a mixed dirt/rock environment. To analyze upon this effort, one must first realize the rather insignificance or of just how darn little that nail is in respect to the total area in question. Even if we limited the search zone to one square meter, in order to locate upon a 1.5" rusty finish nail (straight or bent) which is not such a great percentage of the total cross sectional area, as that represented by a mere 0.0852 sq.in. in 2D format, that's 0.00005497 m2 or slightly less than 0.0055% of the m2. If we introduced that same nail into a 10 m2 territory, that same object has now become 0.000055% of the total area and, of that too I could locate.

Now snookered folks and perhaps fellow NASA Borgs, any search that's based upon a plan view image of the search zone (especially of 2D CCD format) is a compromise at best, as for obtaining any depth of 3D like recognition pattern is somewhat eliminated, even though I've managed to locate that nail with my searching eyesight being nearly plan view or perhaps +/- 15º. However, if we were to introduce a 45º search perspective, there's another advantage to help differentiate objects, in that one can start to interpret upon various size and distance relationship considerations, as well as of shape or of contour and form attributes, thus discovering function becomes more apparent.

Though the search area offers mixed grass and blend of assorted small stocks, twigs or sticks that are of similar diameter to the nail, there's darn little chance that their observed pattern is going to match the criteria of a manufactured item, even if that nail were bent, as nature doesn't typically cause a uniform bend nor place a cap or flange at the end of any rod like structure that also incorporates a rather pointed other end and, the rod/body shape of being uniformally roundish is yet another dead give away. Perhaps item color is among the last of the considerations that attracts my attention.

If instead of using plain old film or CCD, what if we were to utilize an SAR imaging method and, applied such imaging at a reasonably good perspective (say 43º), as now we've added a number of pre-qualified advantages; one of which is for that of recognizing content or substance, as a nail is going to reflect and/or image better (more white) than any common rock or that of anything biological such as the grass or of those small sticks. Even common rock/soil mix is not going to fool the SAR imaging and, of whatever illumination which could easily obscure an optical search by way of there being too much illumination (hot spots) and/or deep shadows casting fictitious sharp lines, as there too is where SAR imaging shines right through with all sorts of "extraordinary proof", all without being impacted by either mega lumens or of one micro lumen getting involved. If anything, it'll become the other content of what's so likely as for being so natural that'll clearly offset the rather significant signal reflection and uniformity of that nail, thus allowing one to clearly recognize the nail as for being quite foreign to the otherwise entirely natural surrounding terrain.

The collective size of pixel patterns offers little significance for being artificial or not, unless of what's thought of as being more likely artificial is so much larger and thereby out of place with what's typically surrounding, even more so if that surrounding terrain is depicted as comparatively and as expectedly rugged and steep, such as a mountainous ridge zone having a good amount of steep and relatively deep terrain including a canyon or rille like channel routed through the entire picture.

If we concentrated upon just the more limited township (raw 1:1 pixel) portion, counting all those pixels that are most likely natural as opposed to those which I've suggested are more likely artificial; well now, seems we've got a rather high percentage of artificial to deal with, say conservatively 5% and, of the greater pictured area of GUTH Venus site No.1 (including those multiple reservoirs, the rigid airship and the possible suspension like bridge), the more likely artificial aspects (including affected areas in between) could still be a great as 1%. That's certainly a whole lot better off than any 0.0055% and, way over the mark as for comparing to that rusty nail situated within the 10 m2 being merely 0.000055%.

What I would suggest is this; that instead of my authenticating what I'll never be able to sufficiently prove onto someone potentially as negative as yourself and/or the likes of wizard David Knisely or George W. Herbert, is that you should accomplish what I've already stipulated onto others; making your own copies from the NASA GIF file and then accomplish a few basic enlargements of just the area in question, applying whatever resampling and filters, then post that image along with your notations. If you personally don't know how to go about doing all this, have one of your staff or a student pitch in with a recent copy of PhotoShop or something NIMA better.

Then also accomplish exactly what I did, by equally exploring through at least another hundred other interesting sites and of equally resampling and PhotoShop filtering in order to get the best results. Obviously any fool can over compensate those filters all the way into the toilet, though as a trial and error method of learning what's possible and of what isn't, that's perfectly OK because, you and I have the original GFI file to go back into.

Gathered from some of the typically opposing statements; I'll often take it that as a critic you've never flown, or if so, then you've never looked out the window, let alone taken any photos of landmark bridges or of any bridge. It's also becomes quite obvious that you've never had to personally enlarge something from a quality digital original, nor have you any experience with the finer aspects of photo software capabilities. Never the less, and as far as I'm concerned, all of that's perfectly OK if not even somewhat bureaucratic understandable, as that's why I've made such an effort as for showing all sorts of methods and of the best results by which I can accomplish this task and, I've been told that my photo software stinks compared to what others have, especially as to what NIMA has to work with.

BTW; stinking photo software is not a cause of implying distortion and/or of adding a damn thing that wasn't somehow there in the first place, I just can't enlarge quite as well without losing focus. Most often a resampling of 3X to a maximum of 5X will be more than sufficient, as well as for keeping the image file size under modest control.

I too will give credit where credit is due and, I'll acknowledge the talents and truths of others. I'll also acknowledge the sheer arrogance and if need be the stupidity of others, as well as pointing out their greed, their immoral actions and of their immoral intentions. I'll also take exception to standing on the shoulders of giants when those folks are either warlords or of their Borg collective.

Sorry about my being such a die-hard kermudgen about at all this, as I'm merely concerned that recent history and thereby science has been skewed into the nearest toilet, as a result the minds of those educated by such a skewed society have become assembled and thus unable to think outside the box, or perhaps the outhouse.