Some have wondered:
Really, are there human remains in 99,988+ photos that therefore restrict disclosure?
I have to agree with you. Something is not right here...
I think
lomapaseo is correct about why only 6 photos were released (why would BEA release more?). But I wonder where the 100,000 number came from. I am not aware that BEA has said, nor has been quoted as saying, anything about the number of photos taken. I have seen one press article use this number, and that article was posted at #3735 (
http://www.pprune.org/6404432-post3735.html) earlier in this thread. Does anyone have a reference to a BEA statement?
Actually, I proposed the 100,000 number, back in post #3163 (
http://www.pprune.org/6357167-post3163.html), so it is possible that the author has simply been reading this thread. That number was a guess based on taking an image every few seconds, for several days, with several vehicles divided between imaging and sonar work. They spent more days at the site, following that post, so an estimate of 100,000 could be off by a factor of three or more, either higher or lower.
The important thing to remember, as I noted in post #3163, is that the pictures are likely taken on a grid survey over a large area extending beyond the sonar-identified debris field, and thus the vast majority probably show nothing but mud.