Mr. Eisenberg. I take it that your testimony concerning Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5 is that due to some loss of detail it is impossible to say that these photographs are identical to Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1—or rather Exhibit No. 133-A, on which Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1 is based—in the same way you can say that a fingerprint is identical to a given fingerprint impression; is that correct?
Mr. Shaneyfelt. That is correct. I was not able to positively identify them, because of this loss of detail.
Mr. Eisenberg. What is your opinion as to the probability that they are identical, bearing in mind that it is impossible to make an absolute unqualified determination of identity?
Mr. Shaneyfelt. They may very well be identical since I found no significant differences other than the retouching.
Mr. Eisenberg. Is there much doubt in your mind?
Mr. Eisenberg. 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.