Didn't he conclude in the end that although the runway looked wider at the top of the photo it is actually wider at the bottom of the photo. That's what the equal length red lines show.
Yup. That's what I was trying to show. Also, don't forget the part where I'm too stupid for words, having initially assumed that it was the other way round...
I do, however, stand firm in my desire to KNOW that the photo is real, and to gain a full understanding of why it looks the way it does. I didn't spend all that time with the image because I wanted to debunk it. Whether or not I came across as doing-so, I really did give the poster the benefit of the doubt. Having done that, I simply wanted to understand it. I am thankful that this discussion is fleshing-out the subject.
Of course, WANTING the danged thing to be "real" doesn't make it so.
I'd also hasten to add that photographers should not become defensive on the basis of this discussion. The question here remains limited to this one photo. Is it real, and if so, why does it look that way? Draw me a picture. Let's hear more about the altitude of the photographer, the angle of the shot, the geography of the airport, and why the equipment made the image look this way.