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

Geez, this Backes is stupid. It's amazing he survives.

Here are the Altgens photo and the first frame of Wiegman. They occurred so close in time that there is debate about which came first. There is absolutely no basis to assume that Doorman moved. 

You can see that in Altgens photo, Doorman appears to be next to the white column, and he is partially obscured by it. In Wiegman, he is standing in the center of the doorway. Again, it is essentially the same time. 

And it was the same way for me when I was standing in the doorway. When the image of me below was taken, I was standing in the center of the doorway, and my relation to the white column was about the same as his. 

I wasn't anywhere near that white column and neither was he. It was all the result of Altgens' angle.

Backes says that there can't be parallax if you're talking about only one perspective. But, I'm not talking about only one perspective. I am comparing how it looked to Altgens to how it looked to someone standing squarely in front of the entrance without any angle. And that person, of course, would have seen everything; so it would have looked like this:

That wasn't taken from perfectly in front. The cameraman was ever so slightly east. But, it's close to being perfectly centered, and that's why you're seeing most all of the doorway. But for Altgens, who was shooting from a rather acute angle from the southwest, a substantial amount of the doorway was cut off to his view, and it is easy for us to diagram it.

Everything to the left of that diagonal line was cut off to Altgens' view. Everything to the right of that diagonal line was in Altgens' view. It's the difference between the two that constitutes the parallax. 

Here is the first definition of parallax:

par·al·lax

/ˈpærəˌlæks/ Show Spelled [par-uh-laks]

noun

1.

the apparent displacement of an observed object due to a change in the position of the observer

OK, so we have to assume that Altgens was previously standing directly in front of the doorway, and we have to imagine what he saw. Then, he assumes the position he took for the Altgens photo. So, Altgens is the observer in the definition above, and he changes his position. What is the observed object that gets displaced? It is the white column. When he assumes his second position, it seems as though the white column has moved over and is now encroaching upon Doorman. 

So, that is the parallax effect. All we need is one observer who looks at the same objects from two different positions. And the fact that we don't have a picture that Altgens took from directly in front of the doorway is irrelevant because we know what he would have seen if he had. This is like the age-old question: does a tree that falls in the forest make a sound if no one is there to hear it? And the answer is: yes. 

Doorman WAS standing in the center- despite what it looks like in the Altgens photo. The FBI agents did not recognize it. Joseph Ball did not recognize it. Hey, that's too bad! And that's their problem. The fact is that Lovelady's signed statement, which was surely worded by the FBI men not him, says that he was against the wall to the far right at the time the Presidential motorcade passed, and that means he could not have been Doorman, who was standing in the middle. 

And that is not in doubt Backes. Even back when we were debating it on the forums, my enemies weren't saying Doorman was over by the wall. Do you know what they were saying? They were saying that he was grabbing the medial handrail. A bunch of them were saying it, including Albert Doyle, Craig Lamson, and others. Ask bpete. He was there; he knows it's true. Don't you have to be pretty close to the center to grab the center handrail? 

You better give up on this Backes because you're looking stupid, and you're going to look more stupid if you persist with it. Idiot.