Actually, no wait... now i remember - you have some kindof problem.
The only "problem" is people spouting unsubstantiated claims, and then just changing them to try and fit their fantasy when they are called out.
Again, the initial numbers you provided describe an impossibility.
It isn't that they weren't supported, it is that they were physically impossible.
Then after being called out, you just change your tune and make up new numbers.
We have no reason at all to believe any of the numbers you have provided.
What reason do you have for thinking it was that particular location you were viewing, at that particular distance?
And again, why are the bottoms of the buildings missing?
THIS WAS ALL ADRESSED
Ummm, no it wasn't.
Here's all we know:
1) Observer location (Where exactly were you when the photo was take?)
Maybe somewhere east near Isla Saona (Which is 75 miles/120KM from Santo Domingo)
UNKNOWN2) Observer distance to targets (How far exactly were you from the the targets - Buildings)
40 Miles/65KM or 40KM/25 Miles, which is nowhere near Isla Saona
UNKNOWN3) Target identification (City, buildings)
Santo Domingo - Buildings unknown, therefore heights unknown
UNKNOWN 4) Observer height (Your eye height above the earth surface)
Boat, 15'?, guessing
UNKNOWN5) Height of visual targets (buildings)
Not specified
UNKNOWNSo now, provide the necessary specific data to validate and make the 'UNKNOWN', 'KNOWN':
1) Observer location (Where exactly were you when the photo was take?)
2) Observer distance to targets (How far exactly were you from the the targets - Buildings)
3) Target identification (City, buildings)
4) Observer height (Your eye height above the earth surface)
5) Height of visual targets (buildings)
Just answer the 5 questions with specific data. Simple as that. Why is that so hard for you? Or are you just trolling at this point?