I think there are more of us who believe the same way you do than you might think - it's just the vocal minority who see 3 story numbers "carved" into mountainsides and acres of trees that happen to look like something when viewed from above who push those ideas. The rest of us just get tired of arguing and we skip those posts now
Cubfan64,
I am going to have to throw my hat in with the vocal minority. While I absolutely agree that there is no substitute for on-the-ground confirmation of what one discovers in aerial photography, and that the imagination can sometimes lead us astray, the belief that a tool like Google Earth or similar aerial imaging service is of little value is quite honestly misplaced.
Dr. Berson of Berlin, as early as 1895ish, successfully demonstrated the effectiveness of the tethered ballon and camera as tools in archeology. It continues today and plays a critical roll in the fields of archeology, geology, agriculture, not to mention law enforcement and national defense.
What began as a Photograph Interpreter, became an Image Analyst, which today in the Army is called a Geospatial Intelligence Image Analyst or a 35G. Note the word "intelligence". There is actually a science to it and the men and women who do this work are highly valued, intelligent, and have at times played a key roll in our nations defense. To dismiss this line of work outright or the potential as a research tool, is in my opinion a disservice to those doing it.
I think that it comes down to training. Most people using GE as a tool to explore the Superstitions have little or none of it. That is easily corrected by finding something interesting on GE and then getting out there to see what it actually looks like, feels like, and smells like on the ground. That's really all it takes. Then go back to the computer and compare notes. Yes, the resolution of GE is limited and light and shadow play a huge roll in seeing things that are not there, but once you train yourself, or are professionally trained (hint,hint), it's a skill that only gets better in time.
Prove it? Look at eldo's image of the "5" again. It's a rock formation. Looks artificial (man-made) and I can clearly see what appears to be a number five like shape. The problem is that this is a natural formation. How can we know this? Look at the shadows. They can be used to determine height or variation in height. eldo's "5" seems to consist of a structure that has varying height. This among other things (wink,wink) would lead one to conclude that the object is natural. Why would there be so much variation in the height of a flat, ground based man-made symbol. It is illogical. Shadows, knowing how to read them is the key. Now I could be wrong but until we have ground based confirmation that the 5 is an artificial structure, it is natural.
Google Earth? It's a tool, but unfortunately, very few take the time to learn how to use it properly.
Books like this one are a great way to start.