Mr. Shaneyfelt.

select a gray that is not too prominent that would give you a highlight that would look normal.

Mr. Eisenberg.

So that the negative is painted, so to speak?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

The actual photograph is painted.

Mr. Eisenberg.

The photograph is painted. Now, would there be any conceivable reason for eliminating in a retouching the telescopic sight?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

The only reason again would be to enhance the detail. I cannot determine from Commission Exhibit 754 whether there was retouching around the stock. There are indications that there is some retouching--I mean around the telescopic sight. It appears to me they did do some retouching around the telescopic sight which we have marked as point E on Commission Exhibit 754.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Without specific reference to 754, might an individual without experience in rifles have thought that the detail corresponding to the telescopic sight was extraneous detail, and blocked it out?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

Yes; it could be done.

Mr. Eisenberg.

I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mccloy.

Do you have anything?

Representative Ford.

No further questions.

Mr. Mccloy.

It may be because I am, and I am sure it is, because of my ignorance in regard to this composition of photographs, but the negative of which we have a copy is that from which this photograph was taken; isn't that right? [Referring to Exhibit 133A.]

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

We do not have the negative of this photograph.

Mr. Mccloy.

You have the negative of this? [Referring to Exhibit 133B.]

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.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Again you say "highlight along the stock."

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

Along the stock.

Mr. Eisenberg.

You mean the highlight introduced by the retoucher?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

Yes. And the scope appears to be much clearer in the photograph on page 80 than the photograph on the front cover, which is Exhibit 754, and is much clearer than is apparent in the photograph 133A.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Can you account for that?