There were 2 distinct references in the report eluding to the size of the anomoly not being as large as originally thought. They say that "Sometimes, similar results occur in conjunction with very concentrated materials that shows in the data as a larger than actual area." Further to this they state "-The 'length' of the anomaly is acurate, but its width and depth would be magnified...we expect that the actual anomaly will be smaller, but still a significant fraction of the above."

We continue to use 3.978 billion M3 which is based on the full dimension of the anomoly based on it being a cuboid. We know this is not a cuboid at exactly 1800 x 1700 x 1300 and we now know that it is now likely smaller in at least 2 of the dimensions. I have used my own formula and calculate the anomoly to be ~2.2 billion M3.

Before anyone claims I'm bashing Skulpin and BOW...I am not. 2.2 billion is still a lot! I am just challenging the formula we have been using for volume.

Vi