[throwawaylinux]

> If the centerline didn't extend under the covering, I'd be sure that is what we are looking at in the enhanced photo.

Why wouldn't they paint such a detail on it? If they went to the lengths of painting the aircraft (as opposed to just covering it) then presumably they want it to be credible.

I'm no expert in this stuff but to me the shadow of the plane matches other shadows pretty well, and also the shadow off the side of the hangar is light and looks like the rib structure, rather than solid so the roof is probably not solid. That seems much harder to fake.

You can also see the roof beams over the plane. Although that kind of detail could be painted on or come through the canvass if it wasn't perfectly tight.

[mike_d]

> Why wouldn't they paint such a detail on it?

The shelters are mobile. It wouldn't be practical to paint the runway/taxiway lines on it, and I don't know how you'd get them to line up from different angles.

[throwawaylinux]

Ah okay, fair point then. I guess you could lay a rubber strip across it rather than paint. It seems probably real though, so the point is moot.

[JumpCrisscross]

> I don't know how you'd get them to line up from different angles

E-ink.

[errcorrectcode]

E-ink wouldn't line-up with anything without knowing there is only one observer and the coordinates of that observer. It would be better, cheaper, and simpler to have an inflatable replica of whatever it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_tank

[JumpCrisscross]

> without knowing there is only one observer and the coordinates of that observer

Like a satellite? (Agree this would fail with multiple satellites.)