A satellite image can provide valuable evidence of a changed landscape while leaving the cause unresolved. The view from above is a measurement with technical limits, not an all-seeing witness.
Spatial resolution is one of those limits. USGS lists most Landsat 8 and 9 optical bands at 30 metres, meaning each pixel represents a substantial area on the ground rather than an individual person or small object.
The same documentation identifies a 15-metre panchromatic band and thermal measurements acquired at coarser resolution. These distinctions show why the satellite name alone is insufficient to describe the detail in a particular image.
Enlarging a displayed image does not create observations that the sensor never collected. A smoother or sharper-looking presentation should not be mistaken for additional evidence about a small feature.
Time is equally important. A before-and-after comparison can constrain when a change occurred, but it does not necessarily identify the precise moment within the interval between acquisitions.
Interpretation must also distinguish observation from explanation. A visible damaged area may support a finding that change occurred while leaving responsibility, mechanism and the sequence of events open to other evidence.
A useful caption should therefore identify the source, acquisition date and relevant limitations. Readers should be able to tell whether they are seeing a natural-colour image, a processed composite or an annotated interpretation.
Satellite evidence is strongest when its limits are stated and it is combined with other information. The objective is a defensible conclusion about what can actually be observed, not the most dramatic claim an overhead picture can be made to suggest.