Part 44

Point No. 8 is a little fragment of bakelite or debris extending out from the edge, that shows in both of the charts in the same manner. In addition the corner at eight tends to curve in towards the picture as it approaches the corner, there tends to be a curvature in and not a nice neat square corner.

In addition, between points 2 and 3 there is a very definite S-curve where the bakelite from which the camera is made apparently warped slightly making this S-curve, and this is apparent in both charts. Again, more apparent as you hold the photograph flat and look down the line.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, the margins of the shadowgraph in the right-hand side of the chart, which is based upon 133B, look somewhat larger than the margins on the left-hand side.

Could you explain that?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was merely a matter of masking during the printing process.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is to say it is the interior which is crucial rather than the width of the margin?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. McCLOY. This mark along the bottom appears in one. How do you explain that?

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. McCloy is pointing to a mark along the right-hand side, a white mark along the bottom of the shadowgraph.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; that is the cut edge of the negative, where this particular negative has been cut very close to the shadowgraph line and this then appears as a white line along the chart and represents the actual edge of the negative.

The other three edges of that negative and all four edges of the other negative do not show in the photograph.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was this chart actually prepared by use of exhibits--by the negatives, Exhibits 749 and 752, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I made the charts directly from those negatives.

Mr. EISENBERG. Approximately what is the enlargement here?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Approximately eight times.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, can you explain why--eight times?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Six to eight, it is in that area.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why the enlargement of 133B is haloed with a white, light halo?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the reason for that was to print the photograph so that it would be clearly a photograph of the negative and show the individual in the picture but not print too dark around the outside edges to give the best possible reproduction of the shadowgraph.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Captain Fritz of the Dallas Police has stated that in his interrogations, Oswald--Lee Harvey Oswald--stated, in effect, that while the face in Exhibit 133A was his face, the rest of the picture was not of him--this is, that it was a composite of some type.

Have you examined 133A and 133B to determine whether either or both are composite pictures?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. And have you--can you give us your conclusion on that question?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite. I have examined many composite photographs, and there is always an inconsistency, either in lighting of the portion that is added, or the configuration indicating a different lens used for the part that was added to the original photograph, things many times that you can't point to and say this is a characteristic, or that is a characteristic, but they have definite variations that are not consistent throughout the picture.

I found no such characteristics in this picture.

In addition, with a composite it is always necessary to make a print that you then make a pasteup of. In this instance paste the face in, and rephotograph it, and then retouch out the area where the head was cut out, which would leave a characteristic that would be retouched out on the negative and then that would be printed.

Normally, this retouching can be seen under magnification in the resulting composite--points can be seen where the edge of the head had been added and it hadn't been entirely retouched out.

This can nearly always be detected under magnification. I found no such characteristics in these pictures.

Representative FORD. Did you use the technique of magnification in your analysis?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

In addition, in this instance regarding Commission Exhibit 133B which I have just stated, I have identified as being photographed or exposed in the camera which is Exhibit 750, for this to be a composite, they would have had to make a picture of the background with an individual standing there, and then substitute the face, and retouch it and then possibly rephotograph it and retouch that negative, and make a print, and then photograph it with this camera, which is Commission Exhibit 750, in order to have this negative which we have identified with the camera, and is Commission Exhibit 749.

This to me is beyond reasonable doubt, it just doesn't seem that it would be at all possible, in this particular photograph.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, did you attempt to determine whether 133A had been photographed through the camera, Commission Exhibit 750?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I did not, because in order to make an examination to determine whether a photograph is made with a particular camera, you must have the negative or you must have a print of the negative that shows that shadowgraph area, and Commission Exhibit 133A does not show that shadowgraph area.

Therefore, no comparison could be made. It is not possible.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does the shadowgraph area show on 133B?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; it does not.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why does it not show on either 133 A or B?

M. SHANEYFELT. Because they are printed in a normal processing procedure, where this area is normally blocked out to give a nice white border and make the picture a little more artistic. In the printing process, masks are placed over the area, or the shadowgraph, in order to cover it up, and the resulting print is a photograph with a nice white border.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that you have to have the negative to make the kind of identification you have made for us earlier?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Looking at 133B, are the observable characteristics of the weapon pictured in this picture--shown in this picture--similar to the observable characteristics of Exhibit 139, the weapon used in the assassination?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; they are less apparent in this photograph because it is a photograph of the bottom, or the base of the rifle, the bottom of the rifle along the trigger-guard area, but it does show this bottom of the rifle in that photograph.

Mr. EISENBERG. Looking at 133A and 133B, do the lighting conditions seem to have been similar?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. They are consistent, entirely consistent, in both photographs, the lighting on the face is the same, the lighting on the background is identical, there appear to be no major differences or no significant differences.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I would like to draw your attention for a moment to this sling on Exhibit 139, and I would like to state for the record that this sling is not thought to be actually a rifle sling, but some type of homemade sling, that is, the firearms expert has so testified.

Does this sling appear in either Commission Exhibits 133A or 133B?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my opinion that it does not. Commission Exhibit 133A has such a small portion of the sling showing that it--you cannot establish that it is or is not the same sling that is presently on the rifle.

However, Commission Exhibit 133B does show the sling, since it shows the bottom of the rifle, and I find it to be different from the sling that is presently on the rifle. It has the appearance of being a piece of rope that is tied at both ends, rather than a leather sling, and it is my opinion that it is a different sling than is presently on the rifle.

Mr. EISENBERG. Just again a homemade simulated sling, is that it?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It has that appearance, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. You testified that you have a much smaller view of the sling, or what passes for a sling, on 133A than on 133B. Is the sling or simulated sling on 133A, that portion of it which is visible, consistent with the sling on 133B?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is entirely consistent.

Mr. EISENBERG. Also looks like a piece of rope, is that it?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it has that appearance.

Representative FORD. Can you tell from a negative about when it was, the picture was taken, or can you develop any time from that?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is possible on some negatives. In this instance it is not. On some negatives there is a numbering system along the edge that is coded by the company that indicates manufacturing date, approximate manufacturing date, and it is usually by year, so that you could state that a film was coded by the company in 1947, therefore, it could not have been used prior to 1947.

This is about as far as one can go in the establishment of time that a picture was taken from the actual film. This cannot be done in this instance.

Representative FORD. I notice on some prints which are now developed commercially that they have a date on the edge.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Representative FORD. Is this a universal practice now?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; this varies with the different processors. It is used by the large companies. I believe Eastman Kodak uses it. Your larger processing companies use it, but your smaller, maybe one-man shop or small photographic shop will probably not use it. It is at the discretion of the shop actually.

Representative FORD. Can you tell from a print which has been developed which processing plant processed that print?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Not without some specific stamp of the processing company on it.

Mr. EISENBERG. I think we should add here for the record that the sling which is presently on the rifle is, as any other sling, a removable sling, and not one that is fixed into the rifle.

Mr. McCLOY. It seems to me that this band here in Exhibit 746 is a, might very well be a reproduction of this, this lighter side of this rather enlarged leather part of the sling.

It seems to be just about the same length.

Representative FORD. That is, what is on the, rifle.

Mr. McCLOY. Which is on the rifle. I wonder, and here it is again in Commission Exhibit 133A--133A has that--of which it is an enlargement. Isn't it possible that is a reproduction of that leather sling?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It could be possible.

Mr. McCLOY. This is not a string by any means.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is true; it is broader. I get the impression by this shadow at the top, closest to the rifle, just below the bolt, there is a faint shadow there that would indicate a double string or rope, and it then becomes narrower as you are looking at the edge of two ropes lying together. On the Exhibit 133B I get the same interpretation of a double-rope effect, partly because of the knot-tying and so on, and you see the shadow between the strands slightly in some areas, and, as I stated before, I cannot, because of the limited amount of that showing, say that it is not the sling. I find it more consistent with the sling showing in Exhibit 133B, which is very definitely----

Mr. McCLOY. A bowknot--133B seems to have a knot at the swivels.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. McCLOY. Which doesn't appear on the rifle now.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, I now hand you the cover of Life magazine for February 21, 1964, which consists of a photograph quite similar to Exhibit 133A, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this photographic cover?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this introduced, Mr. Chairman, as 754?

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 754 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you compared Exhibit 754 with Commission Exhibit 133A?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is your conclusion on the basis of that comparison?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my opinion that it is the same picture reproduced on the front of Life magazine, which is Commission Exhibit 754.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does Commission Exhibit 754 appear to have been retouched in any significant way?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it does.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show the Commission that retouching?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I could. I might state that it has been my experience in the field of reproduction of photographs for publication, in which a halftone screen is made from which the photograph is then printed, it is normal procedure, and was at the time I worked for a newspaper, to retouch the photograph to intensify highlights, take out undesirable shadows, generally enhance the picture by retouching the photograph so that when it is then made into a halftone strip pattern for reproduction by printing, this retouching, if it is done well, does not show as retouching but appears to be a part of the original photograph.

This retouching is done either by brush or by airbrush, which is a device for spraying gray or shades of gray or black, onto the photograph. I point to the area between the legs of the individual on Life magazine.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you circle that and mark it A on Exhibit 754?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Suppose I use arrows.

Mr. EISENBERG. Oh, sure.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. On Exhibit 746B, there is a shadow between the individual's legs.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you mark that A?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I will mark that A. In that same area of the photograph on Exhibit 754, that dark shadow has been removed in this area, I will mark that A.

Mr. EISENBERG. It appears there is a continuous fence slat there, where none appears----

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the shadow has been removed. Lower down in that same area of the legs, near the calf of the leg, again, and I will mark that B, the shadow----

Mr. EISENBERG. B on 754?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. 754; has been softened but not entirely eliminated. That same area is marked B on Commission Exhibit 746B.

Mr. EISENBERG. Has the weapon been retouched?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The weapon has been retouched by placing a highlight along the stock almost up to the end of the bolt. The highlight is brushed right across the top of the highlight that we have previously discussed at the nob or the curvature of the stock where it goes down and then back up to the curve.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you put an arrow pointing to the brushed-in highlight and mark it C?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you put an arrow pointing to the original highlight and mark it D; both on 754 and 746B? You had earlier marked with a circle 746E at point A, showing the highlight as it appears in 133A?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Of course, this highlight does not appear in that same area of Commission Exhibit 746B.

Mr. EISENBERG. You mean the highlight marked C on 754?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Looking at the photograph, at the weapon, the stock appears to be straight, which does not correspond to the Exhibit 139. As I understand your testimony, this is simply a retouching; this effect of a straight stock is simply achieved by retouching the photograph or doctoring it?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is my opinion. I would refer to it as retouching rather than doctoring, because what has been done has been retouched, and doctoring infers an attempt to disguise.

Mr. EISENBERG. I didn't mean to imply such a thing--but retouched, then?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the actual highlight showing the curve and recurve still appears as point D?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you circle--do you see a telescopic sight on the Life cover of 754?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I do.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you draw an arrow marking that E? Would it have been possible to retouch the photograph so that the telescopic sight does not appear?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Oh, yes; that is possible. With a halftone process--it is possible to retouch, and then the halftone process destroys the retouching characteristics and makes it appear as a normal photograph rather than a retouched photograph.

Mr. EISENBERG. And again, based upon your newspaper experience and your experience as a photographer generally, could you state the possible purpose of such retouching?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The purpose of the retouching in reproduction work is merely to enhance the detail so that it will not be lost in the engraving process.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "enhance the detail," why would a stock be retouched so as not only to enhance the detail, but actually to change the apparent configuration? Could you conceive of any reason for that?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I think the reason that the stock was retouched straight in the photograph on Life magazine, and my interpretation would be that the individual retouching it does not have a familiarity with rifles and did not realize there was curvature there, and in doing it just made a straight-line highlight without even considering whether that curved or not. There was curvature in that area which is not readily apparent--it is quite indistinct--and I think it was just made without realizing that there was curvature there.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is, the individual might have thought he was actually enhancing detail rather than putting in detail which was not present in the original?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is there anything else you would like to point out in this photograph, Exhibit 754?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. There is other retouching at the shoulder, to the left of the photograph as we view it; that area has had some retouching of the highlights. Along the barrel of the gun, or the stock of the gun above the hand, there is retouching, a little highlight enhancement there. These are all generally consistent with the type of retouching that we have previously discussed and I have previously pointed out.

Representative FORD. I am not clear why they would retouch, from a photographic point of view.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. They retouch because in the halftone process there is a loss of detail, and had they not retouched this photograph, had they not put the highlight along the rifle stock, then you would only have seen a black area. They were afraid you would only see a black area and you wouldn't get the definition here of the rifle. You lose the detail, and you would lose the view of the rifle. You wouldn't see the rifle there because this line would be lost. The same way along here. This one very definitely, had they not retouched it, it would have blended in and been a continuous tone of dark gray all across there.

Representative FORD. That is--up here--that is, above the hand on the stock?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you said a highlight "along the rifle stock," you actually meant on top, above the rifle stock?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The upper edge.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is it the upper edge, or is it a place that does not correspond to the rifle stock?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is an edge along the rifle stock that corresponds. I am speaking now of the highlight above the hand.

Mr. EISENBERG. No; you said before, in describing the highlight which you can see, you said they drew a highlight "along" the rifle--the rifle stock. Actually it was drawn, as I understand it, considerably above the edge of the actual rifle stock?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; that is true.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you used this technique yourself?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have done retouching of photographs for halftones; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you said before that this retouching is done by airbrush or brush, what medium is used in the brush or airbrush to achieve the effect?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is a water-soluble pigment, and it is available in varying shades of from white to black; it is available in different shades of gray tones, so that you could actually match the gray tone of the picture--since in these instances we are dealing entirely with gray, shades of gray--and you select a gray that is not too prominent that would give you a highlight that would look normal.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that the negative is painted, so to speak?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The actual photograph is painted.

Mr. EISENBERG. The photograph is painted. Now, would there be any conceivable reason for eliminating in a retouching the telescopic sight?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The only reason again would be to enhance the detail. I cannot determine from Commission Exhibit 754 whether there was retouching around the stock. There are indications that there is some retouching--I mean around the telescopic sight. It appears to me they did do some retouching around the telescopic sight which we have marked as point E on Commission Exhibit 754.

Mr. EISENBERG. Without specific reference to 754, might an individual without experience in rifles have thought that the detail corresponding to the telescopic sight was extraneous detail, and blocked it out?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it could be done.

Mr. EISENBERG. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCLOY. Do you have anything?

Representative FORD. No further questions.

Mr. McCLOY. It may be because I am, and I am sure it is, because of my ignorance in regard to this composition of photographs, but the negative of which we have a copy is that from which this photograph was taken; isn't that right? [Referring to Exhibit 133A.]

Mr. SHANEYFELT. We do not have the negative of this photograph.

Mr. McCLOY. You have the negative of this? [Referring to Exhibit 133B]

Mr. SHANEYFELT. We have the negative of 133B.

Mr. McCLOY. You have the negative of 133B. That negative in itself shows no doctoring or composition at all?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It shows absolutely no doctoring or composition.

Mr. McCLOY. So that the only composition that could have been made would have been in this process which you have described of picture on picture and negative and then photographing?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. And then finally rephotographing with this camera.

Mr. McCLOY. Rephotographing with this camera, this very camera?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct, and this then, to me, becomes in the realm of the impossible.

Mr. McCLOY. Yes. There is nothing in Exhibit 754 that, to you, insinuates any sinister type of touching up?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. This is entirely innocent retouching, completely normal operation for a newspaper cut or a magazine reproduction.

Mr. McCLOY. I think I have no other questions.

Mr. EISENBERG. Just two other questions. Is there anything in the negative of 133B--that is, Commission Exhibit 749--to indicate whether it was developed commercially or not commercially?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I cannot determine that from the negative.

Mr. EISENBERG. And finally, I hand you a page from that same issue of Life, the issue of February 21, 1964, page 80, which has a photograph similar to the cover photograph, and I ask you whether this photograph appearing on page 80 appears to you to be the same as the photograph used on the cover?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it appears to be the same photograph.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does the retouching appear to be the same in both?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The retouching is consistent; yes. It appears to be slightly clearer in the photograph on page 80; the highlight along the stock is sharper and more crisp and in more detail.

Mr. EISENBERG. Again you say "highlight along the stock."

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Along the stock.

Mr. EISENBERG. You mean the highlight introduced by the retoucher?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. And the scope appears to be much clearer in the photograph on page 80 than the photograph on the front cover, which is Exhibit 754, and is much clearer than is apparent in the photograph 133A.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you account for that?