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

Let's look at the weird inclination of the limo in the Moorman photo.

On the left, I have drawn the line of the car, and you see that it's sloping downward from right to left. It is a sloping line, downward to the left, and it is NOT parallel with the bottom of the photo. On the right, the line of the limo is also a sloping line, gently sloping upward to the left. It is not parallel to the bottom of the photo either, but it's opposite to the other photo. It's slope is opposite to the other. It looks as though the limo is climbing slightly uphill from right to left. 

On the left, we can see the sidewalk, and it shows the slope, going downward from right to left. On the right, we can't see the sidewalk, and that's why the line of the limo stands out. 

So, why is the line of the limo rising to the left in the Moorman photo when the road was sloping downward in that direction? Well, look at my photo because the same thing happened to me. I didn't have a limo there, but there is a white divider line in the street. The line of a limo would be parallel with that line. Right? 

It's rising upward from right to left, just as in the Moorman photo.
It is not parallel with the bottom of the picture. There is a greater distance from the bottom of the picture to the left edge of the line than there is from the bottom of the picture to the right edge of the line. And that's true even though the road was going downhill, which you can plainly see from looking at the line of the sidewalk. 

The reason that line in the street is rising upward to the left in relation to the bottom of the photo (and I assure you that the camera was level; it was on a tripod) is because of what the physics professor taught us, that the angular view causes that effect. I recall that he said that the angular difference between the line of the limo and the bottom of the picture is correlated with the angular difference between the photographer's orientation and the perpendicular. Except, he said that the photographer's angle was several times greater than the apparent angle that we see there. About 3x greater, I believe he said. So, if the angle of that street line to the bottom of the picture is about 6 degrees, which I believe is about right, then the angle of deviation from perpendicular of the photographer who took the picture was about 18 degrees. And that's what I was going for. Here they are side by side.

   
Watch Backes continue to deny that the Moorman photo was taken at a diagonal angle.