(Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt)
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.
|
