[enriquto]

> So i guess they take a lateral sweep of the image and let the return fill in the other axis of the image?

Exactly. Notice also that there is no "sun", these images may be taken at night or through the clouds, as far as you know. The "shadows" that you see are parts inaccessible from the radar beam itself.

[jcims]

(Sorry to drag this on, really appreciate your input)

Yep, it's starting to click. My guess would be that this (or the 180 degree opposite) is the flight path of the imager in the golf photo, basically opposite the perceived perspective of the photo:

https://i.imgur.com/MEYo12Z.jpg

So there isn't a sun, but it kind of looks like it because of how the signals accumulate or get shadowed.

This would also explain why we could see artifacts from the curved glass that appear to be 'through' the roof. The imager actually has direct line of sight to them from that flight path, and it's the layover effect from the roof/soffit that makes it appear that we are seeing through the roof.

[enriquto]

> Yep, it's starting to click. My guess would be that this (or the 180 degree opposite) is the flight path of the imager in the golf photo, basically opposite the perceived perspective of the photo

Yes! Typically SAR images are annotated with the direction of flight, otherwise they are very difficult to interpret (unless there are tress, like here).

You are right that, even if the image is acquired from the "upward" direction, it looks like a regular image taken from "below". But this correspondence is not exact when there are occlusions (typically the vertical walls of buildings). The side of the building that is visible is the one closest to the antenna, not the one closest to your imaginary point of view. Thus it looks as if it was transparent, because it is superimposed with the ground next to it.

[jcims]

Awesome, didn't expect to learn this much and definitely wouldn't have without your input. Thanks!