Duh. And that's why you can't do what you did and tilt the picture. But now, there's another problem. Can you figure out what it is? Go ahead. Take all the time you need. Are you ready? It's that you still have to account for that leaning tower that you're stuck with. And do you know what the explanation is? Come on now. Really try. I know it hurts, but think. The answer is: there isn't any. It's just a JFK thing. It's just one of those things that happens in JFK-land and nowhere else. The JFK assassination is it's own dimension. It happened in its own universe. Inexplicable shit happens in the JFK assassination, and this is an example.
This is a comparison of the Moorman photo with one of my recreations of it in Dealey Plaza.
My camera was on a tripod, so it was definitely level. You can see that the camera fields are very similar. There is no limo in my picture, but there is a line in the road which can fill-in for the line of the limo. And, you can see that that road line is NOT parallel with the bottom of the picture. That's because, like the Moorman photo, my picture was shot on a diagonal. That is the exact same effect that the Professor observed. I was just guessing the angle- winging it- and I would say that the line of the limo shows a little more diagonality than the line in the road. It means that I could have angled it a little more than I did, but it's close. The Moorman photo was DEFINITELY taken this way, at an angle, on a diagonal, just as the other team that went to Dealey Plaza determined:
Above, that guy is confirming that the Professor is right. Now, you would think that after concluding that, that that team would have gone to Mary Moorman, and asked her if she did that. I did, and she told me that that she faced the street directly when she took her picture, that she wasn't turned. And that is what she has always said and demonstrated over 53 years.
But, the fact that the Moorman photo was taken at a diagonal angle is not in question or in doubt. It definitely was.
And you notice in the recreation that the right arm of the rider who is entering the field from the right side is higher in the picture, indicating that it's deeper, and the left arm was also captured. The whole idea that this could have been captured is preposterous:
That is art. It's not photography; it's art.
First of all, look at the length of his forearm. Are forearms that long? And how, if that much right arm length entered the camera field, could not a speck of his left arm be captured? Look how low that arm is in the picture compared to my right ram. But now, let's really hone in on the hands.
That is not a hand on the left. It looks like a lobster's claw.
I said it was art; I didn't say it was good art. BJ Martin was captured the same in the Moorman photo as he was in the Muchmore film.
Look at the degree to which the Kennedys were captured the same in that Muchmore frame as they were in the Moorman photo.
So, why shouldn't Martin and Hargis have been captured the same as well? It was the same moment. If that matches, the other should match. It did. Hello thumbprint:
And that, in a lobster claw, is the story of the Moorman photo. Note that anybody can go to Dealey Plaza and do their own photographic recreation. But, "they" won't.