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.