posted on May, 12 2005 @ 01:26 PM
Without commenting on the validity of the shots themselves (as I'm not a photo expert), I think it should be noted that most of these 'objects' (if
they are objects) don't have to be a single, monolithic structure that's as tall as the grand canyon is deep. Yes, the rubbed out areas are about
that size, in terms of square miles covered across the landscape, but that does not mean that the 'structures' go up hundreds of miles into the sky.
What we could be looking at is a collection of sprawling smaller structures that are just getting brushed over en masse. The end result, in such a
case, would be one where we think one large object is getting painted over when, in fact, several are being covered under one electronic brush.
To simplify: Let's say that you wanted to erase evidence of Rockford, Illinois... or Abilene, Texas.... or Montpelier, Vermont... and you had to
this with satellite photos that portayed each of these small cities as a collection of structures about one 'thumb' across on your screen. Rather
than erasing each individual block, you'd probably just blur out an entire swath several miles long. Now, if anyone came behind you and checked your
work, it might look like you had blurred out one giant object that was several miles high.