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

Here is how the experiment went. Our goal was to determine how a person standing at the angle of the person who took the Moorman photo would capture Hargis and Martin. We start with the assumption that Hargis was always in front of Martin, about half a bike length. 

So, this represents a neutral picture, shot at 90 degrees to the subjects.

So, in this picture, shot squarely, we see it how it really was, with Hargis' head (purple) ahead of Martin's head (orange). 

Now, we'll swing the camera around to the right. It is going to cause Martin's head to apparently shift leftward in the picture. There is a point at which it will be lined up perfectly even with Hargis' in the vertical dimension of the picture. And it's easy enough to find that point. You just have to stand at the diagonal that they are. 

You see how a vertical line can be drawn in the picture going through both heads. Now, to make Martin's vertical line leftward of Hargis', I have to shift further out to my right. 

So you can see that here, Martin's head is more leftward in the picture than Hargis'. But look how far I had to swing around to get that. 

So, what that proves is that this picture below was taken at quite an extreme angle, since it shows Martin's head leftward of Hargis' head, even though Hargis was more ahead of Martin. 

Of course, that would be Muchmore's angle. 

But now, let's look at the Moorman photo. 

The implication of this picture is that is that the photographer was perpendicular to Hargis and Martin. We are seeing Hargis, who is ahead, and Martin is much farther back.  That's the only way that could happen. It implies that the picture had to be taken squarely, like this:

In other words, for the photographer to have captured Hargis and Martin as they really were, she must have been perpendicular to them at the time they passed her. 

But, that is impossible because we know that the Moorman photo is an eccentric photo shot at an angle. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was shot at a sharp diagonal. We know it because of the eccentricity of the Kennedys in the picture and from the bottom line of the limo not being parallel with the bottom line of the picture. We also know it from the size disparity because the motorcycle cop looms very large compared to the Kennedys, which means that he must have been much closer to the photographer, with the distance between him and the Kennedys being additive to the distance between him and the photographer. 

It means that the photographer, shooting at an angle, should have gotten the angular shift that thrust Martin forward in the picture. But, it didn't happen in the Moorman photo when we look at it from that perspective. 

But, the angle the photographer was shooting from was definitely great enough to cause the shift in the picture, which makes this the result that we should be seeing with Martin front and center. 

We don't see it only because they took it out. The angle was definitely there, and it works the same for motorcycle cops as it does for glasses and paint containers. What you see above is what really got captured in what is called the Moorman photo before they altered it.  
  

It also means that the photographer, whomever she was, was definitely shooting at a diagonal, that the subjects had passed her from her right to her left, and she shot them from behind.

Now, why would Mary Moorman do that? Did you listen to her interview? She said she had her finger on the shutter from the moment the Presidential limo rounded the corner from Houston at the top of the hill. Why would she wait for them to pass her, only to shoot them from behind? She wouldn't. She didn't. And this analysis proves it.