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

Although we are used to seeing it cropped, this is the complete Altgens photo.

What I want you to dwell on is that fact that at the bottom of the frame, you're seeing a very narrow area- even though it takes up the whole width of the picture. 

I continued the center line in the road just to show you that, at the bottom of the picture, it is limited to almost exactly half the road. 

But, at the top of the picture, the width covered goes from a little past the corner of the Dal Tex building to past the half-way point of the TSBD.  And of course, it's a rectangular picture, so the width of it is the same, top and bottom. Therefore, the mathematical "delta" (the amount of change per increment) is much greater at the top than the bottom. 

That is all very clear, but I think that sometimes people forget about it. And, that's why distance has to be properly calculated with that in mind, such as this distance:  

It has been claimed that the Fedora Man in front of the Obelisk in Towner appears in front of the facade in the Altgens photo. And this has been attributed to the parallax effect. Remember Backes' chart from Wikipedia?

However, parallax is not a phenomenon limited to photography. Parallax is a real-life thing. Forget the camera. It involves you looking at something and seeing it a certain way. There is no suggestion of any camera in the above chart. It is referring to what a person sees with his or her own two eyes. 

In the case of the Altgens photo, Joseph Backes is claiming that parallax caused the man at the Obelisk to appear to be at the facade. That's in the photograph, but shouldn't the same be true in real life? In the example above that Backes posted, it's talking about real life. It says "Viewpoint A" and "Viewpoint B". That refers to a person viewing something with his eyes. 

So, what did Altgens himself see? Forget he's got a camera. He's about half-way down Dealey Plaza and he's looking up the hill. That's his viewpoint. What does he see? If there is a man standing in front of the Obelisk, will Altgens see him there, and perceive him to be there, or will it result in the man appearing to be in front of the facade due to parallax? 

Here is a shot that purports to be that of Altgens' view:

I realize that there is no one in front of the Obelisk here, but if there were, do you think Altgens would have any trouble seeing him and identifying his location as in front of the Obelisk? Do you think there is any chance that the person would appear to be somewhere else? And not just somewhere else, but way on the other side of that tree?

Is that how it would look to Altgens with his own two eyes? Of course not. I think you know very well that if there was a man in front of the Obelisk that Altgens would see him there and identify there, and there would be no illusion:

Again, maybe in another universe, but not this one. 

I think this proves that the claim that this happened due to parallax is nonsense. You can't have a parallax effect between a man and the Obelisk because they are too close together. He's standing right in front of it. AND ALTGENS WOULD SEE HIM THERE, PLAIN AS DAY. So, stop the insanity. You know darn well that he'd see him there. It's crazy to say otherwise. 

So, Altgens would see his man; there is no doubt about that. And, I hope no one is denying it. 

So one thing is absolutely and positively sure: if anyone is going to continue to make this ridiculous claim, the ONLY way they can do it, without sounding like a raving madman, is to claim it as PHOTOGRAPHIC effect of some kind, not an optical one. It isn't parallax because parallax applies to what you see with your eyes, and you know darn well that, with his eyes, Altgens would see the man in front of the Obelisk. And he would identify him as being there. And he would have no trouble, whatsoever, at doing so. More to come.