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.