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

Alright, this settles it. Fedora Man, like every other stationary person on this planet, was in a certain spot, and the only one of you who is placing him in a spot is Robin Unger.

You notice that he has an X next to Tina Towner. That is to indicate where she was. Not where she apparently was from someone's point of view but where she actually was. And he also has an X next to Hatman to indicate the same thing: where he actually was. 

Well, if that is where Hatman was, then he was in a crowd of people, and however he was affected, they had to be affected the same. 

You can't single him out. The people next to him would have been affected the same. We are talking here about physics, and it doesn't discriminate. 

Next, Robin gets completely befuddled. Anything wrong with this picture? 

Shouldn't it be like this?

She wasn't shooting at the Dal-Tex building was she?

We are talking about the time that she captured this:

That's the part of her film we are talking about. We are not talking about when she started or when she finished or anything but this. 

Robin, the word is "diversion" and I know we are discussing hatman, but you can think of those other people as an extension of him. Whatever perspective Tina Towner had of him, she also had of them. Whatever perspective Ike Altgens had of him, he also had of them. So, in Lance's models, you have to account for the effect on the other blue cones. 

Just imagine for a second that he wasn't there at all, but you still had the crowd of others. And you still had Tina where she was, and you still had Ike Altgens where he was. So, you still had the triangulated situation, even without hatman. Therefore, Lance's demonstration should apply equally well to them as to hatman. The physics would have been the same, with or without him. They should rotate and get a different background depending on which photographer was shooting them. It can't be limited to just him. 

And what is Lance's response to all this?

The point I made is valid, Upperpunk, and you didn't refute it. You didn't say anything. How is it utterly pathetic? How did you show that to be the case? You duplicated my image. That's all you did. So what? What's your point? You don't win just by duplicating my image and calling me sad and old and pathetic. It doesn't work like that. You actually have to make a point. You didn't.

Guess what, boys? We're staying on this. I think you know as well as I do that I've got my strong hands around your puny necks with this. And I'm not letting go.