I demonstrated that if the photographer faces Elm Street squarely, with no diagonality, where the line of the camera is exactly perpendicular to the street, that you can capture the right hand before the left. But notice that it is no longer the same camera field as the Moorman photo. It is a very different camera field.
Everyone who has gone to Dealey Plaza to reproduce the Moorman photo has realized that you have to turn left and shoot diagonally in order to capture the same camera field. Here is my reproduction of the Moorman camera field, and it is very good:
So, the fact that you can catch the right hand before the left when you are shooting squarely, without being turned left, is interesting but also irrelevant because it does not apply to the Moorman photo.
I have more images of the "squarely facing Elm Street" view than I have ever shown. For instance, this one:
This was a new camera, belonging to the person I was with, and it automatically added the date in the lower right corner. We only had to push a button to turn that off, but we didn't know about it and were oblivious to it at the time. I think it is a ridiculous way to design a camera, to make that the default.
But, here is the comparison:
Look how low the clam-hand is in the bottom picture; it's at the bottom. You can see how much higher the real hand is in my picture. And, how could that much length of the right forearm appear without exposing any of the left? That isn't realistic either.
This diagram depicts the camera field, and facing the street squarely, it would spread out from the lens in a triangular field.
It's demonstrating that you can go with a narrower angle view rather than the full frame if you used the Cropped sensor, but that's not an issue in this discussion. So, you can ignore the blue lines. We are definitely looking at the full frame. So it's the red lines that concern us. So, if the rider is close to the lens, what happens is that his right hand enters the picture first and it's because of the diagonality of the field line. But, at some point, his left hand does enter the field too.
How far does the right arm have to enter the picture before the left hand also appears? Much less than this:
That is a bogus image. And look again at the diagram:
The whole process hinges on the fact that the right arm is farther from the camera than the left arm. That's why it enters the picture first from this perpendicular angle. But, since it is, by necessity, a greater distance away allowing it to appear first, how could it appear at the bottom of the image?
That hand is too low. Compare it again to mine:
Look how much higher in the picture the experimental hand is. So, how could the bottom image be real? If that right arm had entered the camera field to that extent, wouldn't the left arm have appeared by then? Yes! Here are the two arms before they enter the camera field:
So, we are assuming a straight level street here and the camera is facing the street squarely with the line of the camera perpendicular to the street. But, the bike is moving and about to enter the field.
So, if you look closely, you can see that the right arm has already entered the field. It's in! The left arm has not, but it's about to. Obviously, it's going to happen very soon. Just a little bit more advancement is going to put it in view.
So now, they're both in, although the left just barely. But, it shows that you can't go very far with the right alone. This is ridiculous:
To have the right arm extended into the field that far, the left arm surely would have entered also by then. And my picture proves it.
There is a little bit of left hand showing there in the bottom corner. So, that's as far as you can go before the left hand necessarily appears. Furthermore, there has to be room for it, hence the highness of the right hand. This is ridiculous:
It's fake. It's phony. It's just art. Just crude, criminal, bloodied, murderous art. FAKE! FAKE! FAKE! There is no doubt about it. That is fake!