Mr. Stombaugh.

trying to photograph a round object and as a result of this all of these characteristics just won't appear in focus.

Mr. Eisenberg.

To be more specific, Mr. Stombaugh, that circle marked "A" was to show a nobbiness in Oswald's hair. As I recall, you testified there was very little nobbiness present in that pubic hair, as opposed to the normal amount of nobbiness of pubic hair?

Mr. Stombaugh.

That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg.

On the right-hand side of 672, I suppose we don't see much or any nobbiness in either the known or----

Mr. Stombaugh.

No; there is none present here.

Mr. Eisenberg.

So that would correspond with the point you made as to "A," that there was very little nobbiness?

Mr. Stombaugh.

Very little.

Mr. Eisenberg.

And that is why there is no corresponding mark for nobbiness characteristic on the right-hand side, is that correct?

Mr. Stombaugh.

That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg.

The right-hand side of 672?

Mr. Stombaugh.

That is correct. Oswald's hairs, where the nobbiness did appear was in the lower third, in other words, the area from the root out on the shaft approximately one-third. The remaining two-thirds of the hair shaft all the way out to the tip was relatively straight, no nobbiness at all present. This was characteristic. Ordinarily a pubic hair will have this nobbiness two-thirds to three-fourths of the way up. So this was a characteristic which exists in Oswald's pubic hairs which is different from the ordinary or average.

Mr. Dulles.

And you found that both on the hairs taken from Oswald himself and on the hairs found in the blanket?

Mr. Stombaugh.

Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Mr. Stombaugh, on this general point, when you make your comparison examination, do you come to your conclusions on the basis of what you see under the microscope, or on the basis of the photographs you take?

Mr. Stombaugh.

On the basis of what I see under the microscope.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Do you usually take photographs?

Mr. Stombaugh.

No, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg.

And you took them---can you explain why you took them here?

Mr. Stombaugh.

I took these at your request as an exhibit just to show what the hairs looked like. In a photograph it is very hard to try to point out the characteristics of hairs because they aren't clear. Under a microscope you can see each of these points by focusing up and down. If I am looking at the pigment on the hair, I can focus the comparison microscope up and down and see exactly the same characteristics, the pigment is exactly the same size, dispersed about the same, and there is approximately the same amount of pigment in a given area.
Also, the cuticle is of the same thickness. I can line the hairs up longitudinally and see that the tips of the scales match equally as far as protrusion and distance goes.
This you couldn't show in the photographs. In order to show each and every characteristic in photographs, I would have to take 500 or 600 different photographs.

Mr. Eisenberg.

So these photographs are just as a general illustration of the kind of thing you see, rather than being given to the Commission as photographs from which the Commission is to make an identification?

Mr. Stombaugh.

That is correct. If I were to look at these photographs myself, I couldn't make an identification on them because I wouldn't be able to see enough and I would say this looks like this and this looks like this, but so what?
What about the size of the pigments, what about the size of the scales, what about the thickness of the cuticle? I see a medulla here, I don't see a medulla over here. So you just couldn't see all the characteristics in a photograph.

Mr. Eisenberg.

But these characteristics you do see as you change the focus on the microscope?

Mr. Stombaugh.

Yes; these appear by looking through different areas of the hair shaft itself.