Mr. Dulles.

It may be admitted.
(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 608 and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg.

Using this photograph, Mr. Nicol, could you explain some of the markings which led you to the conclusion that Q-1 or Exhibit 399 had been fired from the same barrel through which K-1 was fired?

Mr. Dulles.

Before you do that, just for an amateur, would you explain what this is a photograph of, the inside of the barrel?

Mr. Nicol.

No, this is a photograph of two projectiles.

Mr. Dulles.

Projectiles?

Mr. Nicol.

This is the dividing line of the comparison bridge actually. You see a portion of one, of K-1 on one side and Q-1 on the other.

Mr. Dulles.

Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Is that groove on the right a cannelure?

Mr. Nicol.

There is a cannelure, that would be the position at which the projectile is crimped and held in the cartridge-case.

Representative Ford.

Why wouldn't that show on Q-1?

Mr. Nicol.

It would be over here on the other side. You see you only see this much of Q-l, and it may show on Q-l, but it will be over underneath, and you only see this much of it--in half the field.

Representative Ford.

This is an overlay in effect?

Mr. Nicol.

In a sense, yes, and you are actually masking off half of each one that is represented over here and masking off half of the K-1 over here.
(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Eisenberg.

What is the magnification of these photographs, by the way?

Mr. Nicol.

These were taken on five by seven, I would estimate about 30 diameter.

Mr. Eisenberg.

And is the magnification of Q-1 the same as the magnification of K-1?

Mr. Nicol.

Yes, sir; the optics are carefully matched in order that they magnify identically.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Will that statement be true of all the comparison photographs that will be shown?

Mr. Nicol.

Yes, sir. They may not be at the same magnification because I took some of the subsequent ones on a different unit which had different optics.

Mr. Eisenberg.

But the left and right side of the pictures would be at the same magnification as each other?

Mr. Nicol.

They will be at matched magnification, correct.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Why don't you continue.

Mr. Nicol.

Starting up at the top you will notice a white patch which represents a land impression on the two projectiles. Immediately below that a large patch with a similarity of the contours of the edges.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Mr. Nicol, do you think you could circle that and mark it "1" so that people looking at the record in the future will know what you are referring to? Circle it or make an arrow?

Mr. Nicol.

All right.
Below that in approximately this position you will see a line on Q-1 that is found over in the comparable position on K-1.
Below that at a point representing an imperfection on Q-l, slight damage to the projectile, you will notice a line which continues across.
Below that a pair of lines, and then a larger line, below that a pair of fairly deep impressions, and below that another pair of single broad grooves, and then another pair, one of the lines is not in the same size, and then as one gets further down the match is--the bullets are no longer in a match relation ship, simply because Q-1 is somewhat distorted as a result of having struck some hard object at the base portion, so that it is oval.
In the case here we are comparing two surfaces of different radii so that they do not--looking at them as a projection they do not match up.
But in this particular region, from approximately this fill-in in the cannelure, there is a sufficient number of points of identification to lead me to the conclusion they were both fired in the same weapon.