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

Lamson, you crack me up. You're supposed to be this photo expert, yet, you say the lamest things. Lame Lamson. That's what I'm calling you.

Now listen up, Lame Lamson. I know that if you take a ruler to it, that my bag is a little wider at the top than the bottom, but the following points still prevail.

1) First, the difference is quite slight. I took a ruler to it on my browser, and it was 4 1/2 inches wide on top and 4 inches at the bottom. That is a much smaller contrast than we see in the picture with Montgomery, despite the fact that I was GREATLY EXAGGERATING the claimed action. I was leaning my bag towards the camera much more than he was- and I don't even grant that he was leaning it at all.

Remember: I was deliberately leaning my bag towards the camera. Do you think he was? 

2) But second, and more important is that OUR MINDS PROCESS THAT SLIGHT EFFECT. In other words, we understand it, even without thinking about it consciously. Upon looking at it, we know very well that it is a rectangular bag. There is no optical illusion. It does not look pyramidal. Not in the least. But, the other bag does. 

3) Therefore, it renders the point you are making a purely technical one. VISUALLY, the bag still looks like the shape that it is. There is no perspective distortion. There is no optical illusion. There is no false information. 

But, with this other bag:

The contrast in width between top and bottom is extreme, even though if he is leaning it towards the camera at all, it isn't much.

In other words, the whole claim is nothing but a lie. That bag looks pyramidal because it was pyramidal, and you are, once again, wrong.