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

Backes, you can take your little model and shove it the same place you shove your proscenium arches because it's not relevant and I'm not interested. But, as for the rest:

Sure, without moving a guy, you could take pictures from different angles and change his background. But, that's only true when there is a lot of background behind him. We are talking about a guy who is in front of a concrete monument. It's like a wall. If a guy is standing in front of a wall, you can't change his background by altering the angle. Your argument does NOT apply to this guy:

Besides, Unger says he was really there:

Do you see that red X over the yellow line? That X represents the real location of the man in front of the decorative facade, according to Unger. So, he's saying that that guy was really there, in front of the monument. He is disagreeing with you, Backes. 

Backes, that statement is completely incoherent. The vast majority of the time, when we see people in photographs, they are exactly where they seem to be, and there is no confusion. 

The Crucifixion? I thought we were talking about photography, the telephoto lens and all that. That's what Unger is talking about. How many times have you looked at a person directly and wondered where they really were? What are you saying, Backes? That even without the camera, that to his naked eye, if Altgens was looking up Elm Street that he might be confused as to where a certain man was? Are you really saying that?

So, now you're saying that it's just his apparent closeness to the white column that is the false impression? So, he is in front of it, but he's just not that close to it? Then wouldn't that put him out in the middle of Elm Street? Because, he's facing Elm Street.

Look: here is Tina Towner in her spot:

Now, that is her perspective, her angle. The background goes to the monument and the trees and a little beyond, and that's it. That's the whole background. That is what she filmed, and there is no doubt about that. So how, with her aiming the camera in that direction could someone be captured in that field who was really located here:

Anyone standing where Tina Towner was and filming in the direction that she filmed would get perfectly accurate information about the location of everyone in the film. That background isn't big enough or complicated enough or deep enough to cause any confusion. It's very straight-forward. Nothing that you are saying applies here. It's complete and total nonsense coming out of you. You're just spewing garbage. It's noise. You're not making ANY sense, Backes. Serously, you are one fucked-up dude.