Credit where credit is due, the shadow argument makes a lot of sense.
I agree with most of GH said, but I have two caveats...
1) The sun (of course) aims at a downward angle. Considering the shadows aren't very long in the clip, its a fairly sharp downward angle without a ton of lateral misalignment. Its not like the sun is coming directly from the side like a 90 degree angle (which would mean the shadow hitting the side of the table would confirm he didn't have enough height).
Why does that matter?
It means Tyshawn could have still cleared the full height/length of the upper deck of the table (that 5x20 as GH describes), but just had a misaligned ollie. Its very hard to ollie perfectly straight when you're going full tilt like that (especially riding/popping switch). I don't think the crooked ollie was "cheating" on purpose like some people are suggesting.
Again though, if all of this is the case, then why isn't there a second angle?
2) If Tyshawn ollied it at an angle, then that means he ollied further than necessary if he would have done it completely straight. Pythagorean theorem and all that jazz. Meaning he would have had to maintain that height for that much longer.
Obviously clearing the full height of the table is more impressive than adding a few inches onto your distance. But it also means he may have maintained that height for the full [20 units] of distance, but it was misaligned so he didn't clear the corner.
My point is that these two factors combined could just be chalked up to him being on a time crunch (these are LA tables right?) during a west coast trip, and not having time to clean it up. Probably also wanted to save his legs to get other clips rather than fatiguing himself on perfecting the details of one clip.
I really don't think there is any doubt any anyone's mind that he can do this. Skitch him at the table on a dirt bike and he clearly has the height to clear that thing clean lengthwise.