Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

Oh, I grasp the concept of the proscenium arch, Backes. I know it applies to the theater, to the stage. I know it doesn't apply to the doorway of a warehouse. 

And I know that buildings cast shadows, but there is a fundamental principle that the shape of the shadow is determined by the shape of the object that is casting it. And that's why I say that the building could not cast a shadow that was confined to Black Hole Man's face. 

And you're right that nobody can challenge my claims, but the claims aren't bull shit: the challenges are. 

And the essence of an "arch"- whether you are talking about a foot, a back, a bridge, or anything else- is that it's "arched." The use of it in reference to something that is not arched is just sloppy language.

Backes says that in the picture below I was too stupid to get into the sunlight. But, look what I'm doing with my eyes. I'm squinting.

I'm squinting because the light is irritating my eyes. Look at it closer yet.

 So, in effect, my eyes were closed. I knew my eyes were in the sun because it stung. I felt it. But, I should have had someone there directing the scene who would have noticed that part of my face was in shadow. And that person could have told me to inch forward a little bit. How could I know that my forehead was in shadow? 

And I know there is a shadow "line" going across my face. That's what I've been saying; it's linear.

And no, a shadow is not "three-dimensional" and it is not a "thing". 

Look at the small shadow on Black Hole Man's left shoulder. What are its three dimensions? 

If I have a box, it has three dimensions, and they are: length, width, and height. So, what are the three dimensions of that shadow? 

And after saying that there is no parallel between these two photos, now he says there is: 

It's important to realize that Black Hole Man's elbows are so far out that his arms can't be blocking any light from the sun. You could drive a truck through there. So, the only part of his arms that can be obscuring his face are his hands. But, his hands aren't big enough, and they aren't extending out far enough, to obscure his whole face. The lower part of his face should still be receiving direct sunlight. The lower part of his face WAS receiving direct sunlight; there was nothing stopping it.  

And Backes, you are just plain stupid. The phenomenon of light and shadow- where a shadow falls- has nothing to do with anything external. It involves only three elements: the source of the light (which in this case is the sun), the object that is blocking the light, and the area on the other side of it where the shadow is cast. And that's it. 

Black Hole Man cannot possibly be a legitimate image. If it were legitimate, they would be able to produce another image that is like it, where an entire face is obliterated, supposedly by shadow. 

And even if they couldn't find such a picture, surely since they think they know what they are talking about, they could get out a camera and arrange the conditions that are necessary to produce such a result, and produce it. 

  
But, you haven't done that, Backes. The only picture you have submitted is one of mine. YOU are the one who brought that into it, not me, though it shows something very different. I have a face: a whole complete face. You can see the whole thing. Some of it is in light; some of it is in shadow; but you can see the whole thing. But, we can't see any of this guy's face. 

So, if you think this is real; if you think this is legit; if you think you understand the physics that is going on here, then take a camera and duplicate the picture. Frankly, I don't give a shit how you go about doing it; just do it. Stop flapping your lips and get your lazy, proscenium-stuffed ass to work. There is only one thing that can possibly save you and that is to produce a photograph that duplicates what we see with Black Hole Man, which is to say that there is nothing that can save you.