Have you examined 133A and 133B to determine whether either or both are composite pictures?
Mr. Shaneyfelt. Yes; I have.
Mr. Eisenberg. And have you—can you give us your conclusion on that question?
Mr. Shaneyfelt. Yes; 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.
Representative Ford. Did you use the technique of magnification in your analysis?
Mr. Shaneyfelt. Yes.