It doesn't change a thing. We're still left with Toni Glover waving at nobody. She's got her taller, wider mother directly in front of her on the pedestal such that her eyes are flush with her mother's back, and yet she's waving- at nobody. The President hasn't reached her yet. He is off to her right, as you can see above. It is still an incongruous image. It is just as incongruous now as it was before.
Now I have a mock-up.
So, the box is the pedestal. The stick is the person standing on the pedestal. The florescent light bulb represents the line of the pool which is continuous with the pedestal. The grass is the grass. And the board is the sidewalk.
I want you to notice that the light bulb got captured in the picture. And if Mrs. Glover and Toni were standing on the pedestal, the line of the pool would have been captured as well.
We know that the line of the pool was parallel with the line of the sidewalk. And, we know that the line of the pool was behind the grass. So, as we look at that picture, where we see only grass in the corner, we know that the line of the pool has to be behind it, all of it. But, the line of the pool is also continuous with the pedestal and therefore with the line of Mrs. Glover and Toni. And that's why I drew it the way I did.
That matches what I did.
In the Dorman frame, the line of the pool would have been captured in the picture were the Glovers standing on the pedestal.
And you can't say it's farther back because the pedestal was narrow in that direction. The pedestal only projected slightly forward of the pool line.
Can you see the pool line at the bottom of the pedestal? How much forward of the pool line is the pedestal? A few inches?
And in my drawing, the horizontal line to indicate their relative elevation works:
It works because we can do the same thing with the modern picture which shows a vast difference.
The point is that the pedestal is high. It's not a little step. It causes you to tower. The Glovers are not towering.
Let's do another experiment. Let's assume that the pool isn't seen because it's behind and out of view. But, I'll install it in the approximate location to capture the idea.
So, it was farther back than that but presumably just a little. But, that is the wrong shape for the pedestal. It told you; it's not cubic; it's rectangular, and it's narrow width goes east to west. It's long length goes north to south. So, that's impossible. Furthermore, how could the Glovers be standing so far forward on it? Wouldn't they stand in the center? It's like they have their feet over the edge.
Backes says that the reason the white ends prematurely is because the film frame ends.
Then why is there green there?
If the white ended because the frame ended, why does it look green beyond the line of the white?
Now, Backes wants to talk about the Houston Street landmarks in Dorman, which are the street signs and the traffic light. Fine by me. Let's see what we've got.
That, apparently, is the double sign made famous in Hughes and the tall light post north of it. But, here is how it looks in Hughes:
This shows everything: the asymmetrical double sign at the corner, the symmetrical double sign half way down, the tall light pole farther than that, and then the traffic light at the corner. But, look how far down the symmetrical double signs are in Hughes. They are a long way from Maine. Here they are again in Dorman:
That white line is Main Street. So, how could all that distance get collapsed into such a tiny space? And if you're going to say that the sign in Dorman is the first sign, the asymmetrical one, then where is the symmetrical one? The photo below confirms the same order that we see in Hughes:
So, turning from Main, first you'd see the first double signs which were asymmetrical in size and shape. Then quite a ways down, about the middle of the block, you see the symmetrical double signs made famous in Hughes. Then about 2/3 down, you get to the tall light pole. And then there is the traffic light at the corner of Elm. This correlates to what we see in Hughes. But, the locations as seen in Dorman just do not make sense.
That car is just turning onto Houston from Main. So, how could the symmetrical double signs be so close at hand? They're practically at the cross walk.
That is not right. It does not make sense. But, it gets worse because after the limo passes the Glovers and the traffic light, presumably at Elm, it keeps going straight ahead for a long ways. It should have to turn immediately, but it doesn't. I am going to post some frames that follow the passing of the traffic light.
Alright, you see the limo, and you see the traffic light. If that's Elm, then it should be turning, right?
Now, we are past the traffic light, and there is no sign of turning.
Still no sign of turning, the time is up to second 26.
Still no sign of turning, and we're up to second 27.
In second 28, we do see signs of turning.
But, I have done this with other versions of Dorman in which the time span was even longer than that between the traffic light and the start of the turn. It's ridiculous because the traffic light was at the corner, and you start turning as you make the approach.
So, the whole issue of the sequence and position of the signs and poles and traffic light in the Dorman film does not make sense. But, I don't have to explain it or defend it because I do not defend it. I know very well the Mrs. Glover and Toni were on the grass; they were not on the pedestal. And the fact that the Dorman film was manipulated and falsfied, just like all the others, is beyond doubt.