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

So, I believe I have demolished the parallax claim quite thoroughly, and all that's left is the photographic claim, that even though Altgens would have had no trouble seeing and identifying the man in front of the Obelisk and recognizing him as such, that something happened in the taking and making of the photograph that caused the illusion to manifest. 

Well, it didn't work out that way for us. Even photographically, when someone was in front of the Obelisk, they got captured in front of the Obelisk, like this woman:

You see that woman in blue in front of the Obelisk, right? That's where she was, and that's where she was captured in the picture. 

I'll admit that this picture is a little bit skewed from the standpoint of duplicating Altgens angle. The photographer needed to step out into Elm Street a little more because he cut off the right side of the picture a little bit and opened up the left side. But, it makes absolutely no difference. We would see that woman standing there just the same if it were angled correctly.  

There's another Scotsman who has joined the fray; his name is Neil Harrison. And he made a diagram similar to the one that Robin Unger made:

So, he's claiming the same thing, that the man in front of the Obelisk would seem to be in front of the facade due to an optical parallax effect. Like Robin Unger, he wanted to place the man at the curb because it makes it easier to get a straight line. It all hinges on getting a straight line. But, it really doesn't mean a thing. There is no illusion, just as you can see there is none in my photo. The proximity of the person to the Obelisk comes through; it always comes through. And that is why this claim is absolutely preposterous: