it is not up to us explain it, it is up to you to prove your explanation.
You know, in his defense, there's not much more for him to explain.
There are two images, and something that appears to move between the two images. I'd say he's done explaining his theory.
here's my explanation, the camera has moved far enough to the right in your second image to obscure the object.
You ask, "where it is" my answer is, "it's behind the big rock."
It *looks* like the object is right next to the big rock, which means it couldn't be obscured behind it.
I propose to you that it's not right next to the big rock, it's a bit farther away.
If I wasn't so busy at work, I would try to recreate the scene that I describe in a 3d program.