posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 07:27 AM
reply to post by afoolbyanyothername
No apology necessary afoolbyanyothername, this is discussion and debate and as you've pointed out - you welcome that. I may not share your view, but
I certainly do see the level of detail you are seeing, if not moreso, probably to the point where you may take interest in what I have to say here.
There is a smaller shaded area to the left of this darker speckled patchy area you point out that has a different shape. Now let's consider the power
of light, projection, relfection...and subsequently, refraction. To me, both images have obvious dissimilarities, the most obvious being that some of
the shaded areas on both are of slightly different shape and shade of colour. Why is this?
Is it not an entirely possible scenario that would fit as with viewing my house on Google Earth back in 2006; was an aerial shot where my car WAS
parked outside of my house - and shadows we seen in a north easterly direction. I latter viewed the same mapping functions in 2008 from Google Earth,
where my car was NOT parked outside and shadows were seen in almost perfect northern direction thus allowing certain patches in my garden to be viewed
along it's western border, where they were not previously visable!
Now, I ask you...is THIS not a plausible explanation for this apparent image you see in your photo's? I am convinced it is. I appreciate what it is
you are trying to discover, but I could use the exact same arguement of Google Earth tampering to substantiate the EXACT same claims as you, could I
not? This is my point.
FACT remains, they were actual aerial shots but very obviously superceded by later images, as could also be seen with a construction site we
developed. 2006 showed the foundation construction and the 2008 showed our completed site!