Looks great.
I wonder why you are the only one able to achieve that. Perhaps if you set the overlying transparency at 50% we could better access the results. Even so, I notice some anomalies, the changing paint on the railings, some off-kilter pixels on the top pic (plants on either side of the leftmost post, strangely fat near upright posts, and a few others. Transparency would help, as would being told that you transformed the top shot keeping its ratio, not distorting it at all. Why not post both shots so we all can tell? It's just strange that you are the only one who managed to do this, and scientific inquiry demands repeatability of experiment.

I have seen others do exactly the same previously Bob in their efforts to show what actually happens.

As for the anomalies, disregard the failing wood treatment and concentrate on points where the two frames meet. The images were aligned with lower opacity on the smaller frame and of course the ratio was maintained throughout equalising re-sizing. The subject was chosen specifically because you could 'clearly' see points, bolts, powerline insulators to use to for sizing.

There are obvious very minor anomalies that can be seen, pole edge alignment, power line edge alignment and I put these down to two reasons, a) the fact that manual alignment has to cater for horizontal & vertical movement as well as expansion (diagonal movement) which become difficult with the images expanded on screen. b) that my 28-75 varies in distortion between the range. For info I did not use 'lens distortion correction'.

As for greenery, take no notice of any because it is breezy here.
I can happily post the original shots, but then anyone could say that the result achieved was luck because of distortion in my lens.

Bless your heart! I guess you don't know me, as I often do make mistakes and acknowledge them, But then, if you acknowledged that, you wouldn't have any way to avoid simply being transparent. Now I really do think you faked it, because a truly searching person would not mind at all sharing their data. You and Andy (the now science guy) don't seem to grasp science or epistemology at all.

Since you can't back up your assertion (as I have done in my posts, sharing all aspect of each shot and inviting others to check them out), your assertion is worthless. Your deflection is a fail. You have proven nothing because your data is tainted and your on't allow your experiment to be replicated.

I have zero intention of wasting time either digging out old shots or creating new ones to prove (again) which has already been demonstrated - you have had your “proof” both visually from multiple sources and from experts, and now I think you’re just being disingenuous and wasting every one’s time for your own misguided enjoyment. No rationional (and I emphasize rational) person can continue to assert this crap in the face of 18 pages of pros telling you you’re wrong. Hopefully, no beginners (or students) who read this idiocy believe it. I have tried to be polite, but there comes a time when you need to be labeled for what you’ve proven to be - a time waster and a fake. I don’t think you’ll get by with this BS again any time soon. You’ve squandered any credibility you had, and I for one (and I’m sure many others) won’t waste our time with you again.

In the topic "Does perspective change when you change the focal length?" I was not allowed to reply.
Here's what I wanted to write:
"What bigotry and ignorance. I used Andy's own photos (can be seen towards end of "Does perspective change when you change the focal length?", and AGAIN showed that he and others who deny that focal length changes perspective are wrong. Since scientific experimentation and free speech have been shut down here, I am going to post my response to Andy and the original poster who banned me, in my own topic."
I also would like to tell some of the people on that thread the following, in case they follow here:
"Please stop calling people names, for it shows the weakness of your argument.
"Please stop calling people ignorant. In this case, apparent ignorance of linear perspective on the part of some called into question extensive knowledge on my part--I had to teach the damn stuff. Tough. I know many people cannot perceive it, fail at it. However, to accuse of ignorance actually reveals ignorance."

So, here is a transparency of both Andy's photos, with perspective lines indicated. The perspective is indeed changed. I'll also upload his photos, so others can explore.

Also, I found a stock photo shot by a wide angle lens, and drew the perspective lines on it. They are all over the place, thus false. I then corrected for the lens in Photoshop, and indicated the perspective lines we (and generally a 50-70mm lens sees) see.

Finally, CaptainC, whose post started the whole discussion, posted four photos, all shot from the same place, same distance, on a tripod. He had said those who thought lenses distorted perspective were wrong, and that could be proven by cropping the shorter length lens photo and overlaying it on a tele photo. I did that, because I thought, "Wow, really? That goes against what I had thought." So, I looked at two of those photos, lining up the same, most distant building in each so they matched, and found that perspective indeed had changed. Perspective lines for each shot, one set blue, one set red are overlaid.

If anyone wants to join in the discussion, with insight and honesty, please do. Mysteries remain.