Mr. Shaneyfelt.

My only explanation would be retouching, from retouching" around the scope. The primary reason for the additional clarity between the entire photograph, without specific reference to the scope, the clarity that I mentioned in the entire photograph on page 80 as compared with the cover is, I believe, basically the fact that the cover is so enlarged. There is a tendency on big enlargements to separate the detail out by enlargement so it appears not as clear, so a smaller picture will sometimes look clearer than one of the same picture that has been enlarged. This would account for some of the additional detail and more distinct sharpness in the photograph.

Mr. Eisenberg.

May this photograph on page 80 be introduced as 755?

Mr. Mccloy.

It nay be admitted.
(Commission Exhibit No. 755 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg.

One final question: Can you compare the sharpness of the scope on Exhibit 755 with the sharpness on Exhibit 746E, one of the reproductions-you prepared?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

Yes; there is the same difference in sharpness between the photograph on Commission Exhibit 755, which is page 80 of Life magazine, and the photograph which I made from the Government's Exhibit 133A, which is Commission Exhibit 746E. Again this difference in sharpness, I believe is due to retouching in part, and in part to the picture in Life magazine being smaller, and thereby the detail is not spread out so much. It is a combination of retouching of the photograph and size.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my examination.

Mr. Mccloy.

I am further interested as you look at this rifle as it lies on the table you can see the highlight, even without any photograph, very clearly. The shine centers on the curvature of the stock. It is quite interesting.

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

That is very apparent on Exhibit 748 also, where you get the duplication of the lighting. This nob tends to reflect more light.

Mr. Mccloy.

It is obvious that it is right up there as a conspicuous highlight. I didn't realize that it was so indicative of the curve of the stock of the rifle.
Thank you very much indeed for your cooperation and very enlightening and very interesting testimony.

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

Thank you.
(Recess.)

Robert Inman Bouck

Testimony of Robert Inman Bouck

Mr. Mccloy.

Mr. Bouck, you know the purpose for which you are here?

Mr. Bouck.

Yes, I do.

Mr. Mccloy.

And we are very happy to have you help us to acquit ourselves of our responsibility here in determining all of the relevant circumstances in connection with the assassination of the President.
I believe you are going to give us something of the routine by which Presidents are protected?

Mr. Bouck.

Yes.

Mr. Mccloy.

I will ask you to rise and hold up your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you give in this hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Bouck.

I do.

Mr. Stern.

Mr. Bouck, I would like to outline first the order of questioning I have in mind to give you a notion of how I would like to proceed and how you might respond to particular questions.
I would like to cover first your biographical background, then the functions of the Protective Research Section, generally the organization of the Section, the sources of information on which you rely regarding potentially dangerous people, the criteria you employ to determine when an individual might be dangerous, what you do with the information once you receive it, and then some detail on how your filing system is set up and operates, how do you get at data.
Then based on all that background information, the preparations that were actually made for the President's trip to Texas.