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

Now, Backes claims that because Roy Lewis said that Frazier picked Oswald up in the mornings in Oak Cliff that it's a fact, and we have to accept it. THE GUY WHO SUPPOSEDLY DID IT IS STILL ALIVE, AND HE NEVER SAID IT. Yet, for some reason, Backes thinks that Lewis trumps Frazier when it comes to Frazier.  

"As for Frazier picking up Oswald everyday, Lewis said it.  We all heard Lewis say it. Lewis was there in 1963. You weren't."

But, Frazier was there, and Frazier is the one we're talking about. Doesn't Frazier know whether he picked up Oswald in Oak Cliff? Why would you put anyone's word about this above Frazier's, especially if you believe in Frazier generally? 

Backes doesn't get it that it would be a very, very, very big thing if Frazier was picking up Oswald every morning. In a word, it would change everything. It would put Frazier's whole involvement in the case in a whole different light. So, going to Frazier and hearing him admit it or deny it is absolutely mandatory. How irresponsible of Backes. It is really offensive that he considers him to be a "researcher." That he ain't. 

Now, getting back to Doorman, we note that the arm has the same greyscale as the rest of Doorman's shirt. So, if it's the naked arm of another black man, it means that the color of his skin, the color and pattern of his shirt, and the color and pattern of Doorman's shirt all manifested in the black and white photo with the exact same greyscale.

How could a man's skin coloring match the coloring of his shirt? And that of another man's shirt as well? And how could a rolled up shirt sleeve look as neat and tidy as what we see there? Why would he even have his sleeve rolled up in that situation? You don't need to have your sleeve rolled up to wave. It's just an arbitrary and fanciful assumption- from a blithering idiot. 

It's not the arm of another African-American man, you stupid moron. If it were, we would see him- here and in other image captures. 

Many people besides me and Paul Rigby say that the Altgens photo did NOT go out at 1:03. Dr. David Wrone wrote in his book that the Altgens photo was "crudely" altered. His word. Well, even crude alterations take time, and that means the photo did NOT go out at 1:03. 

And, the moron does not understand the meaning of parallax. Here is a very basic definition from dictionary.com: 

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

Now, that is certainly a more bare-bones and easily grasped definition, so let's go with it. "Apparent" in this case means a false and misleading indication of position. The term "apparent" is used a lot in astronomy: the apparent position of a star vs. its real position. So, it's the apparent displacement, and displacement means movement, so it's the seeming movement (and obviously the object hasn't really moved) of an object due to a change in the position of the observer. In this case, Altgens is the observer. Now, his position was what it was when he took the picture. So, what position are we comparing to? To being squarely in front of the doorway, where instead of being at 23 degree angle or whatever Altgens was, that he was just in front of it. And, if he was just in front of it, Doorman would have appeared to be in the center of the doorway, just as he appeared in Wiegman.

You can see that Doorman is in the center of the doorway. Does anybody doubt that? That's the beginning of Wiegman, which coincides with Altgens. HE IS NOWHERE NEAR THE WEST COLUMN. But, in Altgens it is this:

We don't see his right shoulder any longer. It appears to be behind the west column. It wasn't. It was in the same location as in Wiegman. THEY WERE TAKEN AT THE SAME TIME. It is an apparent displacement. And the cause was the angular shift, the parallax resulting from the angle at which Altgens took the picture.

Backes, I could get an 8th grade Science student to understand this with no problem. You are such an idiot. You are such a complete incompetent fool, you're a laughing stock. You just don't get it: it's useful to demonstrate the effect of parallax by showing two different angles.  But, that's an experiment; a teaching experiment. It doesn't mean that every single time in life that you have to have two angles, two pictures, in order to have parallax. It's a natural phenomenon. Once you understand it, you can talk about it without necessarily showing the other angle. But, in this case, I actually did! 

Angle 1:

Angle2, showing the effect of parallax, with his right shoulder now partially covered, even though he was nowhere near that column.