Mr. Shaneyfelt.

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?

Mr. 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 ceded 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.