Mr. Eisenberg. And that again the similarity in retouching to the upper right of Oswald's shoulder and head might be coincidental?
Mr. Shaneyfelt. Yes; actually, there is considerable difference in the retouching in that area on the New York Times photograph as compared to the Newsweek and Detroit Free Press exhibits. The New York Times has attempted to make it appear as a wall, whereas the other two have merely airbrushed out the line, and it looks like foliage.
Mr. Eisenberg. The stock in all three of these photographs, that is, Detroit Free Press, Newsweek, and New York Times, has also been retouched in a similar manner, that is, so that the top of the stock appears straight, whereas actually the top of the stock is curved—is that correct?
Mr. Shaneyfelt. That is correct.
Mr. Eisenberg. What do you think accounts for the coincidence of the retouching in these two areas—that is, the top of the stock and the area to the upper right of Oswald's shoulder—given the differences you have noted in the details of retouching?
Mr. Shaneyfelt. I would attribute that to a lack of detail in the photographs that they had, and a lack of understanding of the formation of a normal rifle stock on the part of the retoucher.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, I hand you the front page of the New York Journal-American, issue of February 18, 1964, which again contains a photograph similar to those you have been discussing, and which I have labeled Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 7, and ask you whether you have examined that photograph?
Mr. Shaneyfelt. Yes; I have.
Mr. Eisenberg. What is your conclusion?
Mr. Shaneyfelt. It is my conclusion that this photograph is the same in all visible characteristics as the photograph which is Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, and I found no differences that would suggest that it is other than the same photograph. However, because of the lack of detail in the reproduction on Exhibit No. 7, it is not possible to positively identify it as the same photograph.