Mr. Cadigan. No; it includes an enlargement of the original Selective Service System registration certificate issued in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. Eisenberg. And that is the Selective Service System certificate on which the forgery in the name of Hidell was based?
Mr. Cadigan. From which the reverse side of the forged or the fraudulent and counterfeit notice of classification was prepared.
Mr. Eisenberg. Focusing our attention on the certificate of service, could you illustrate by use of this photograph and any others you have already introduced some of the points which led you to your conclusion——
Mr. Cadigan. Yes.
Mr. Eisenberg. As to Commission Exhibit No. 806?
Mr. Cadigan. The two negatives in Commission Exhibit No. 812, which appear on Cadigan Exhibit No. 20, show the areas of retouching. Examination of the negatives themselves in Commission Exhibit No. 812 shows that the original entries on the face and reverse side can be seen. It appears in red. The face reads "Lee Harvey Oswald, 1653230." And the reverse side bears his signature.
From a study of the negatives and from the enlarged photographs, Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 15, 16, 17, and 18, I wish to point out some of the evidence that links these three items together. On Cadigan Exhibit No. 16, on the reverse side in the printed word "signature," the "u" is misshapen, due to some of the retouched substance crossing the letter, and this is exactly in the area where the upper portion of the name "Lee" appears on the original card. This is seen on Cadigan Exhibit No. 21.
Also on the line below, in which appears the printed wording "signature of certifying officer," in the letter "n" in "certifying" can be seen a long line which at first glance might appear to be a part of the signature "A. G. Ayers, Jr.," but which corresponds exactly to the ending stroke of the letter "y" in "Harvey."
Also, in the printed word "officer" on the same line can be seen the effects of the retouch in that the upper part of the first "f" has been cut off by the retouch substance. So that by a study and a comparison of the Commission Exhibit No. 806 with the negatives, with particular reference to where the retouching fluid has cut into lines or printing, and further comparing the same negative with the original card, as shown in Cadigan Exhibit No. 21, I determined and it can be seen that the Commission Exhibit No. 806 was produced from the negatives in Exhibit No. 812, which, in turn, were produced from the original card of which Cadigan Exhibit No. 21 is a photograph.