Yes I am tiresome - but so are you. You get angry and irrational when someone engages with your evidence but disagrees with you. So please explain the maths behind overlaying images taken from different angles on different cameras and coming to any meaningful conclusions from doing so. Just explain that one thing then we can move on to the next item in your theory. The onus is on you, remember. If you want to be taken seriously you need to convince some doubters - just explaining it to your fans hasn’t got you anywhere has it?
Anybody with a brain knows that when you move from being mostly in front of an object to being mostly to the side of that object, the view of the object changes. If you move positions enough to make the relative position of the plaque to the casket and window change drastically, it’s going to impact the view of the stand also - because you’re basically taking a side-view shot of the stand instead of a frontal view. If the view of the stand doesn’t change when you do that, something is very wrong.
I loved geometry because geometric proofs required a person to think through the implications of data and to make conclusions justified by laws. In order to have the mullion of the window disappear behind the plaque, the vantage point has to be substantially to the left of the mullion - so far to the left that when you draw a ray between the vantage point and the mullion the plaque is in the way.
If you draw a ray from that vantage point to the stand it’s going to give a different side/perspective of the stand than if you draw a ray from a vantage point looking straight at the mullion. Photos of the stand taken from substantially-different vantage points should not be able to be laid on top of each other and match.