Q. Mr. Shaneyfelt, what is the basis of your statement, the theoretical basis of your statement, that every camera with this type of back aperture arrangement is unique in the characteristics of the shadowgraph it makes on the negative?
Mr. Shaneyfelt. It is because of the minute variations that even two cameras from the same mold will have. Additional handwork on cameras, or filing the edges where a little bit of plastic or a little bit of metal stays on, make individual characteristics apart from those that would be general characteristics on all of them from the same mold.
In addition, as the film moves across the camera and it is used for a considerable length of time, dirt and debris tend to accumulate a little—or if the aperture is painted, little lumps in the paint will make little bumps along that edge that would make that then individually different from every other camera.
Q. Is this similar then to toolmark identification?
Mr. Shaneyfelt. Very similar; yes.[A10-401]
Based on his examination of the shadowgraph on the negative, Commission Exhibit No. 749, Shaneyfelt determined that it had been taken with the Imperial camera.[A10-402]
Three edges of the shadowgraph of the film-plane aperture were also visible on one of the photographs of General Walker’s house, not having been blocked out in the making of the print. On the basis of these three margins, Shaneyfelt determined that this photograph had also been taken with Oswald’s Imperial Reflex camera. Shaneyfelt could not determine whether 133-A had been photographed with the Imperial camera, because the negative of 133-A had not been found, and the print itself did not show a shadowgraph area.[A10-403]
During his interrogations Oswald had been shown 133-A, and had claimed it was a composite—that the face in the picture was his, but the body was not.[A10-404] Shaneyfelt examined 133-A and 133-B to determine if they were composite pictures. He concluded that they were not:
* * * it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite. I have examined many composite photographs, and there is always an inconsistency, either in lighting of the portion that is added, or the configuration indicating a different lens used for the part that was added to the original photograph, things many times that you can’t point to and say this is a characteristic, or that is a characteristic, but they have definite variations that are not consistent throughout the picture.
I found no such characteristics in this picture.
In addition, with a composite it is always necessary to make a print that you then make a pasteup of. In this instance paste the face in, and rephotograph it, and then retouch out the area where the head was cut out, which would leave a characteristic that would be retouched out on the negative and then that would be printed.
Normally, this retouching can be seen under magnification in the resulting composite—points can be seen where the edge of the head had been added and it hadn’t been entirely retouched out.
This can nearly always be detected under magnification. I found no such characteristics in these pictures.
Q. Did you use the technique of magnification in your analysis?
A. Yes.[A10-405]
Furthermore, the negative, Commission Exhibit No. 749, showed absolutely no doctoring or composition.[A10-406] Since the negative was made in Oswald’s Imperial camera, Commission Exhibit No. 750, a composite of 133-B could have been made only by putting two pictures together and rephotographing them in the Imperial camera—all without leaving a discernible trace. This, to Shaneyfelt, was “in the realm of the impossible”:
In addition, in this instance regarding 133-B which I have just stated, I have identified as being photographed or exposed in the camera which is Exhibit 750, for this to be a composite, they would have had to make a picture of the background with an individual standing there, and then substitute the face, and retouch it and then possibly rephotograph it and retouch that negative, and make a print, and then photograph it with this camera, which is Commission Exhibit 750, in order to have this negative which we have identified with the camera, and is Commission Exhibit 749.
This to me is beyond reasonable doubt, it just doesn’t seem that it would be at all possible, in this particular photograph.[A10-407]
* * * * *
Q. You have the negative of this? [Referring to Exhibit 133B.]
A. We have the negative of 133B.
Q. You have the negative of 133B. That negative in itself shows no doctoring or composition at all?
A. It shows absolutely no doctoring or composition.
Q. 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?
A. And then finally rephotographing with this camera.
Q. Rephotographing with this camera, this very camera?
A. That is correct, and this then, to me, becomes in the realm of the impossible.[A10-408]
Following the assassination, photographs similar to 133-A appeared in a number of newspapers and magazines.[A10-409] At least some of these photographs, as reproduced, differed both from 133-A and from each other in minor details.[A10-410] Shaneyfelt examined several of these reproductions and concluded that in each case the individual publisher had taken a reproduction of 133-A and retouched it in various ways, apparently for clarifying purposes, thus accounting for the differences between the reproductions and 133-A, and the differences between the reproductions themselves.[A10-411] Subsequently one of the publishers involved submitted the original photographs which it had retouched. Shaneyfelt’s examination of this photograph confirmed his original conclusion.[A10-412] The remaining publishers either confirmed that they had retouched the photographs they had used, or failed to contradict Shaneyfelt’s testimony after having been given an opportunity to do so.[A10-413]