Mr. Mccloy.

It may be admitted.
(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 747, and received into evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg.

Have you prepared a simulated photograph showing this weapon, Commission Exhibit 139, held in approximately the same pose as it appears to be held in Commission Exhibit 133A?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

I have; yes.

Mr. Eisenberg.

And that is an 8-by 10-inch photograph?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Which you prepared yourself?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

Yes; I prepared the photograph myself, having the rifle held in approximately the same position as in Exhibit 133A, and I attempted to duplicate the lighting of the photograph, Exhibit 133A.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted?

Mr. Mccloy.

It may be admitted.
(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 748, and was received into evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg.

Where was this photograph prepared, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

This was prepared in the FBI laboratory.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Was this inside or outside?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

Outside.

Mr. Eisenberg.

On the roof?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

On the roof of the Justice Building.

Mr. Eisenberg.

I see the head of the individual in the photograph is blacked out. Can you explain the reason for that?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

I blanked out the head because it was one of the employees of the FBI, and I felt it was desirable to blank out the head since it was not pertinent.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, based upon Exhibit 133A, upon your reproductions of Exhibit 133A, consisting of the Exhibits Nos. 746 A through E; and upon your photograph of the rifle, Exhibit 747, and your simulation of 133A, Exhibit 748---have you formed an opinion concerning whether Exhibit 139, the rifle used in the assassination, is the same or similar to the rifle pictured in Exhibit 133A?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

Yes; I have.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Can you give us that opinion?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the same.
I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences. I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.
I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.

Mr. Eisenberg.

When you say "this point," you are pointing to the right side of the weapon, to a point approximately 14 to 15 inches in front of the bolt when the bolt is turned down--is that correct?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Mr. Shaneyfelt, looking at this Commission Exhibit 139, the weapon, I see that the stock is curved downward, about 8 inches--at a point approximately 8 inches--from the butt of the weapon, and that it then re-curves upward at an angle of approximately 10° to the plane of the forepart of the butt--is that correct?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Now, I will hand you Commission Exhibits 746 A through E, and I will ask you to select from those exhibits the photograph which best brings out the various details of the weapon.

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

I believe that the contour of the stock is best shown in Commission Exhibit 746E.