Originally Posted by
majicbar
As I see it from my own photographic experience, and my training in geography in photogrammetic interpretation, and remembering that I am reallying needing to see the original full definition images, preferably not in JPEG compression, my impression is that if one were not to take the image as a 3-D object, it could well be a very thin rectangle at some inclination to the line of sight, giving the impression of diamond shape, but rather be essentially just a 2-D object. If such a rectangle was blown off the same building it was taken from, it would be a relative small object, the size of a poster, or broadsheet. I think the problem is having a preconceived notion that it is large and thus far away. But given that we do not have a reasonable image to start from, I say I need to await that evidence before reaching conclusions. I'd be much more likely to put money on my guess though.