Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Cole, reviewing the Exhibits which consist of prints of the negatives we have been discussing, that is, Cole Exhibits Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9, it appears that these prints essentially resemble blank forms, blank printed forms. Can you explain the reason for that?
Mr. Cole. The reason is that these prints are made from negatives which I believe were a part of a purpose for preparing final photographic prints which appear to be blank forms.
Mr. Eisenberg. And in the case of Exhibits—Cole Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6, can you explain the reason why Cole Exhibit No. 6 shows various splotches or splotchylike patterns, whereas Cole Exhibit No. 5 does not?
Mr. Cole. Well, Exhibit No. 6 shows that side of the negative to which the opaquing medium was actually applied, whereas Exhibit No. 5 shows the opposite side. Now, on the opposite side, you can actually read the material that was being opaqued from the negative because the opaquing material is a dull red color and it actually reflects a considerable amount of light. However, it will not transmit any light, and the fact that it will not transmit light is shown by the prints made from these same negatives such as Cole Exhibits Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9.
Mr. Eisenberg. As I understand it, then, in examining the negatives by reflected light, the opaquing material on the reverse side would serve as a background, and therefore would not prevent you from reading the material which was eventually opaqued out, is that correct?
Mr. Cole. That is true as to Exhibit No. 5.
Mr. Eisenberg. Yes.
Mr. Cole. But you observe on Exhibit No. 6 you cannot read the material opaqued.
Mr. Eisenberg. That is—yes. I should have said when the negatives are examined from their front—is that right?
Mr. Cole. When the negative is examined from the side to which the opaquing material was applied, you cannot read the material that was blocked out by the opaquing.