the 2 photos you posted show the crashed fighter was not in the same location, it was in 2 different rice fields, "where villiages stand" was a proof of fake photos. look at the main rice field road(green, grassy, and tall rice field path). from one photo, it was very close, not other rice field path between. other photo has a rice field path between, and the main-green-grassy-tall path was far away. the angle of the crashed plane was different to the tall grassy path.
Yes it was, the two photos were just taken at different distances, one photos was taken probably 100 yards from the wreckage, and the other picture was taken up close to the wreckage.
Look here:
This picture is taken
far from the wreckage as well as the spectators:
This picture was taken
close to the wreckage as well as spectators.
You also are not accounting for the
time laps and angle of the pictures, by the time the camera man moved closer to the wreckage the spectators could have also moved.
Duh, of course that green patch of grass is closer in one photo---because the camera man moved
closer to the wreckage to take the photo.
This is another duh moment, of course the angle of the crash is different the camera man took two photos, from
two different angles. Both the right and left side of the aircraft was photographed, one was a close up the other was from far away.