Lonewolf_50:
Clear Prop, if we go back to the first two pages, the various eye witness accounts (which were not dashboard cam) mentioned pitch angle. This discussion hasn't just been about that vivid but incomplete video. Your point on perspective is well made.
You're absolutely right, another good point. However, the eye witnesses were behind the aircraft with the same disadvantage of lateral view. The illusion would be the same from behind and if the departure appeared normal to them, they would disregard most of the information their eyes told them anyway, up to the point where the aircraft started doing unfamiliar things. Any instability in roll at the point of departure might be completely undetectable to a distant bystander, but quite obvious to the crew "uh oh what's wrong with my ailerons?"
The illusion is exaggerated by a camera - which is the permanent record here, but it still applies to the Mk.1 eyeball at those angles.
I'm not in any way refuting the load shift hypothesis, the point is we don't have enough information to conclude anything from the facts we've seen and heard so far, which is hopefully what the investigation will clarify, but having spotted this alternative analysis of the events as they appear, I thought I should share it.