Backes' latest rant concerns several things, the first of which is very trivial, amounting to nothing but a nominative error.
First, I am very proud of my record because I have made very few mistakes, and the few times I have made mistakes and realized it, I have always quickly admitted it and retracted it.
It's true that for quite some time, I referred to the Black Man in the Altgens photo as Roy Lewis. But, when I found out that he was only 17 years old at the time, and not a large man, and also dressed in dark clothes on 11/22/36, I realized that he could not have been the Black Man in the Altgens photo or the Wiegman film.
However, I don't consider it MY mistake. Others were referring to the figure as Roy Lewis, so I did as well. It's not as though I was the first to conclude that he was Roy Lewis.
But, yes, when I saw this imagery below, posted by Robin Unger, I could see the facts clearly, and I immediately changed it to Carl Jones.
Above you can see that Roy Lewis was much smaller and younger than Carl Jones, and he was wearing a dark shirt, unlike the Black Man in the doorway who was wearing a light shirt like Carl Jones.
And, I not only issued a retraction, but I went back to the OIC website and changed all the references: from Roy Lewis to Carl Jones, which you can see for yourself, if you want:
For me, this was just a matter of referring to the man by his right name. Of course, I want to be accurate. But again: it was just a nominative error. Frankly, it doesn't even matter if the guy was Roy Lewis of Carl Jones. It has no effect whatsoever on my analysis, which has not changed the least bit because of it.
So, Backes is right about this, but he is making much adieu about nothing; trying to turn a mole into a mountain.
But now, with enough said about that, I'll respond in my next post to the rest of Backes' latest rant, about which he is ALL WRONG, as usual.