Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cadigan, in either the fraudulent selective service notice of classification or certificate of service, have attempts been made to reinstate portions of printed lines which were blocked out by the opaque substance?
Mr. Cadigan. No; I didn't notice that, particularly. I noticed from a technical standpoint that the opaquing was rather crudely done, in that the opaquing of negatives is a common photographic technique, and with reasonable care you can avoid cutting into lines. I didn't particularly observe any areas where the lines had been put back in.
This does not eliminate the possibility, because it is a very simple matter of scratching through the opaque emulsion to produce such a line.
Mr. Eisenberg. Where the line is thickened, as is visible in Cadigan Exhibit No. 15, how would you account for that, Mr. Cadigan? I am looking now at Cadigan Exhibit No. 15 in the block, that portion of the rectangular block surrounding the number "224," and particularly the bottom of the block.
Mr. Cadigan. A study and examination of Cadigan Exhibit No. 19 shows that these areas correspond to the figures "114" which appear in the second block of the Selective Service number, and which were not retouched off.
Mr. Eisenberg. So you feel that, rather than the bottom of that block being thickened in the retouching, what you have is a residue from the typed-in portion——
Mr. Cadigan. Yes.
Mr. Eisenberg. Which appeared on the original card?
Mr. Cadigan. Yes; and this can be further seen. The right-hand side of the block for the first two letters of the selective service number shows a thickened area which corresponds to the numeral "1" on the original card of Oswald.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cadigan, returning now for a moment to Commission Exhibit No. 795, were you able to identify either of the two signatures written in ink on that card, the one being "Alek J. Hidell," and the other a signature written over the caption "Member or clerk of local board"?