Be aware, that EVEN THOUGH SOMETHING CAN'T BE explained (ie.: the skeptics to "put it to rest with a scientific explanation), does NOT mean: "Ergo: Spooks" (or UFO or treasure or whatever).
This would be shifting the burden of proof. It's kind of like the Oak Island psychology: Some curious unexplained object (or symmetry, or out of place rock, or squiggly line carved on a tree, or .... whatever) is present. The treasure believers say this is evidence of a treasure. And when a skeptic goes to try to "explain away" the anomoly, it becomes very easy for the musers to play 'wackamo' and likewise ... explain away the explanation. Ie.: to show that ... whatever potential explanation the skeptic gives, didn't, likewise, hold merit.
And each time the musers/believers can do that, it only FURTHERS their notion of "treasure".
I'm not saying, that you are saying/musing, that your O.P. satellite pix meant "treasure" (so don't get "lost in the example"). Just saying that it's easy to fill-in-the-blanks (anything un-explainable) with things that we want (subconsciously) to muse. If it were a theological discussion, this is known as a "God of the gaps" debate argument. Ie.: anything we can't explain, gets attributed to God (ie.: a proof of theism). Then a century later, when perfectly logical explanations arise (for lightening, earthquakes, etc...) then the theists/believers look mighty silly. For having filled those "gaps" with "God". Again, don't get "lost in the example" (I realize this isn't a discussion of theism/atheism). But just pointing out the easy trick of the mind.