Photographs are two-dimensional; they have no depth. So, when we recognize depth in a photo, we are inferring it from comparative data. For instance, we know that this foot bridge has depth because the size of it dwindles, and the whole thing converges.
But, what is there about this image below that suggests a depth differential between Doorman and Black Hole Man?
So no, I don't lack depth perception. There is just no indication of any significant difference in depth between them. Based on what? The background is all black. It doesn't provide any points of reference. There is nothing about their sizes that suggests that one was farther from the camera.
Amazingly, the Idiot Backes claimed of Black Hole Man:
"This man, incorrectly identified as... Lovelady, is several feet to the left and several feet behind Doorman."
Yeah, I get the part about him being left. He is definitely to Doorman's left and to our right. But, where are you getting the "several feet behind" from? Based on what? Again, the photo is two-dimensional, so depth has to be inferred. So, what are you basing it on, Backes? You didn't say. Is it obvious? Then point out the obvious. It won't kill you. You see, I don't think you can. You don't have anything. You were just blowing smoke. And before you say something else that's stupid, why don't you think about it?