Apart from the factors which have been mentioned so far as apparently due to retouching, and those factors which you have not yet discussed but will, was there any difference between the reproductions and the original, between the apparent reproductions and the original? That is, was lighting the same, position, and so forth?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

Yes; I found them to be the same in all of these general characteristics as to lighting and position of hands and position of body, their relation to the background. I found no differences whatsoever.

Mr. Eisenberg.

So that for the photograph to be a different photograph, I take it, you would have had to have Oswald line up exactly in the same position, with his elbows and .torso in precisely the same relative position, with the rifle at precisely the same relative height and in precisely the same relative position as it had been in previously, with the lighting casting the exact same shadows, insofar as shadows are visible, and so forth, is that correct?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg.

And you found no discrepancies in those items I have just mentioned?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

That is correct.
(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Eisenberg.

Back on the record.
To make the record complete, is there any other possibility, no matter how remote?
Mr. SHANEYFELT, Yes; even though it would be extremely remote, it is conceivable that a person could actually make a drawing or painting of a picture exactly like this, that when reproduced in a newspaper or publication with its loss of detail would resemble Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, in the same manner that this picture or this reproduction resembles Exhibit No. 133-A.

Mr. Eisenberg.

"This reproduction" being which, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

Either Exhibit No. 4, or Exhibit No. 5, Exhibit No. 2, any of the magazine or newspaper reproductions that we have discussed.

Mr. Eisenberg.

You are not talking about Commission Exhibit No. 133-A itself, which you testified to earlier?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

No, no.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Do you See any evidence of this, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

No; I do not, and I think it is in the realm of unreasonable doubt and it is highly improbable.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Returning to Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 5, could you describe the apparent retouching in that exhibit?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

Yes; there is airbrushing in the background area that shows beside the right shoulder of Oswald, where the tree that shows in Exhibit No. 1 has been airbrushed out to a darkened area. There have been highlights added to the rifle, a straight highlight along the top of the stock, running from the butt of the stock to the bolt, a bright highlight along the butt of the stock.
There has been rather elaborate retouching around the bolt area or breech area of the rifle. The highlight that appears in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1 along the bolt of the gun, which appears as a broken line or two segments of a line or highlight, appears in the reproduction on Exhibit No. 5 as a broken line very much like the actual highlight in the photograph which is Exhibit No. 1.
There has been a highlight added parallel to that, along the bottom of or just below that area in the reproduction on Exhibit No. 5, which does not appear in Exhibit No. 1.
The top of the rifle has been emphasized with a strong highlight, and the highlight in the reproduction of Exhibit No. 5 along the top of the rifle does not conform to the actual top of the rifle as it can be seen in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1.
There are some other highlights added above that, that are rather unexplainable but may be highlights relative to the lower portion of the scope.
Also a highlight has been added along the top of the barrel between Oswald's left hand and where the barrel extends past his left shoulder.
There has been some retouching added around the pistol on the right hip of Oswald, and around the holster. These are the primary points that have been retouched.

« Previous | Next »

Found a Typo?

Click here

Last Update: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 21:56:35 CET