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

You wanna fight, Backes? Let's fight. 

The Proscenium-stuffer is now turning to Wikipedia to support his claim that arches can be perfectly flat. Gee, I wonder if he thinks arched feet can be perfectly flat. I wonder if when someone tells him to "arch his back" that he reacts by straightening his back.

But, turning to Wikipedia, here's the first image they show of an arch. 

The second image they show of an arch is a bridge, and in this case, the arch (referring to the part that is "arched" or curved)  is underneath the road surface. 

Granted, that's pretty slight as arches go, but still, it makes all the difference. The very word "arch" means curved. It's what we mean when we speak of the arch in a foot, the arch in the back, etc.

Returning to Wikipedia, they classify arches:

To whatever extent the word "arch" is applied to a purely horizontal span without any curved element whatsoever is a misnomer.  An arch is NOT straight up, straight over, and straight down.  It has to be arched for it to be an arch.

Moving on, the Proscenium-stuffer doesn't realize that Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia and not everything it has is correct. A shadow does NOT occupy space. Only matter can occupy space, and a shadow is not matter. 

However, the first sentence from Wikipedia which Backass quoted is correct and concise: 

shadow is an area where direct light from a light source cannot reach due to obstruction by an object.

Hey, that is perfect. It couldn't be stated better. A shadow does not occupy space, but it does have dimensions. You may be able to take a ruler and measure the dimensions of it. But, there's nothing there. It would just be a practical endeavor, meaning that "in effect" a certain circumscribed area is affected by shadow, but it isn't occupied by the shadow. If you tried to put a chair into the space, it would go in just fine like an empty space because it is an empty space; there's nothing there. There is no matter there. A shadow is not matter. A shadow isn't going to interfere with the chair going into the space. That's why it is not correct to say that a shadow occupies the space because a shadow is merely the absence of something: light.  

How can something that lacks something (photons) be said to be "occupied"? What is it occupied with? A lack of photons? 

If my safe is empty, I could say that it lacks having a million dollars in it. But, I can't say that it is "occupied" by the lack of a million dollars. It's a perfect analogy.   

You can say that a shadow "affects" a certain area, but you can't say that it "occupies" the area because only matter can occupy an area.

Here is a definition of shadow by a guy who calls himself Math Dan which I agree with completely: 

"To really understand what a shadow is, we really have to know what a shadow is not. When we look around, we see objects because light is bouncing off of them and that light is hitting our eyes. When something blocks the light that would shine on an object, there is a shadow. This is because a certain area has no light hitting it, and so no light can be scattered off of it for us to see. Matter is usually defined as something that has mass and takes up space. So a shadow is not matter, since it has no mass and takes up no space. Instead, a shadow is a lack of light on a certain area." 
   
 So, once again, Backass; I'm right; you're wrong; and some poor proscenium arch is going to take a beating tonight.

Backes says that Black Hole Man has only half his face in shadow.

Hmmm. I'm starting to wonder if proscenium-stuffing gives you x-ray vision because to my eyes, his whole face is in shadow. 

Backes says: "he's extending his face out into the sunlight." 

And you, Backes, are fucked in the head because if he was extending his face out into the sunlight we'd see it. I knew you were going to hurt yourself with those proscenium arches. 

And then for some reason, Backes quoted what I said about the nose being in front of the chest, but he omitted the graphic. 

 Now look at that picture and try to imagine that he's facing the sun so that the top of his chest is in bright sunlight. Is there any way his nose would not also be in bright sunlight? 

Then, Backes faults me for posting this collage. He says one has nothing to do with the other. 

If that's true, then why did Backes post this?

So, I said that a shadow from the building would cut through Black Hole Man's arms, that there was no way a shadow from the building could be limited to his round face. And he said that it can and that my own photo proves it. But, my arms are down in that photo. I'm not vizoring my eyes, and Black Hole Man was. 

Here is a man who is standing in a doorway. He is standing deeper in that doorway than was Black Hole Man. And although he is not vizoring his eyes with his hands, his hat is serving the same purpose, extending far out over his face and shading it. 

Note that he has a lot of shadow on his face, and that's because he's standing deep in the doorway and because the rim of that hat is creating a lot of shade. But even with all that, his chin and the left side of his face below his ear are in bright sunlight. And even the part that's shaded isn't black. It's missing the bright light, but we can still see that he has a face. It's still getting enough ambient light that we can see his entire face. Just compare him to Black Hole Man.

The image on the right is bogus, Backass. Black Hole Man was altered. They took his face out. They blackened it out.  And he happens to be Billy Nolan Lovelady. And just so you know, the guy on the left is not standing beneath a proscenium arch.