Mr. McCLOY. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you give in this case, this hearing, will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so held you God?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I do.
Mr. McCLOY. You know why we are here? It is to ascertain all the facts and circumstances which seem to be relevant to the assassination of the President and the death of his alleged assassin, and there are certain identifications which I believe you can be helpful to us with, and with that I will just ask you to respond to the questions.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, can you state your full name, please?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt.
(At this point, the Chief Justice entered the hearing room.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your position?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, assigned to the FBI laboratory.
Mr. EISENBERG. What unit?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am in the document section of the FBI Laboratory here in Washington.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does your work in that section customarily include photographic work as well as written documents?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is true.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly give us your qualifications as an expert in photography, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have been in photographic work since about 1937. I started working with the FBI in 1940. Three years prior to this I had worked as a newspaper photographer in Hastings, Nebr., and on entering the FBI I worked in the photographic section of the FBI for about 8 years before I became a special agent. I became an agent in 1951, spent a year in Detroit as a field investigator, and then was returned to the laboratory and assigned as a document examiner. I was also assigned cases involving photographic examinations, because of my extensive experience in photography.
I have a B.C.S. degree from Southeastern University here in Washington.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you estimate the number of photographic examinations you have made?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This would be just an estimate. I would estimate approximately 100, between 100 and 300. I couldn't come any closer than that.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you testified in court on the subject?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG Mr. Chairman, may this witness testify as an expert in the area of photography?
Mr. McCLOY. Yes; I think he is qualified.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, I now hand you two small photographs which have been already marked "Commission Exhibit 133," and I ask you whether you are familiar with these photographs?

279

Page 280

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, for the record, these photographs appear to show Lee Harvey Oswald in two different poses, and they were found by police officers, following his apprehension, at one of the premises at which he resided.
Mr. Chairman, I would like your permission to mark these Photographs "A" and "B" for easy identification; they have already been marked "Commission Exhibit 133."
Again for the record, there are two poses represented in these photographs. In one the rifle is held--a rifle is held--in front of the body, and in one it is held somewhat above the torso. I am marking the rifle the photograph in which the weapon is held in front of the body--as A, and the photograph in which the weapon is held somewhat above the body as B.
Mr. McCLOY. When you say above the body, you mean above and to the right side of the body as Oswald faces the viewer?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shaneyfelt, have you prepared reproductions of Exhibit 133A to show the weapon pictured therein in further detail?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show us those reproductions? Did you prepare these yourself, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did. They were prepared by rephotographing Commission Exhibit 133A, to preparing a negative from which I made a variety of prints of different densities to bring out the devil of the rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "of different densities," could you explain that in lay terns?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; to try to get greater variation between the light and dark areas of the photograph, or to bring out or enhance the contrast so that the detail is more apparent.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like these photographs admitted as Commission Exhibit 746.
Mr. McCLOY. You want to put them all into one exhibit?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; and I will subnumber them A, B, C, D, E.
Mr. McCLOY. Have you identified these sufficiently?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; I have.
Mr. McCLOY. I wonder whether you have?
Mr. EISENBERG. The witness has identified these as subphotographs of 133A. There are five photographs, is that correct, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. McCLOY. Different dimensions?
Mr. EISENBERG. Two photographs being what size?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Two 11 by 14 inches, and three 8 by 10 inches.
(At this point Representative Ford entered hearing room.)
Mr. McCLOY. Very well, they will be admitted.
(Commission Exhibit No. 746 was marked and received in evident.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Let the record show I have marked these "Exhibits 746 A, B, C, D, E", the two larger photographs being marked "A" and "B," and three smaller photographs being marked "C," "D," and "E."
Mr. Shaneyfelt, I now hand you a rifle, Commission Exhibit 139, which for the record I will state is the rifle which was used in the assassination, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this weapon?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you prepared a photograph of this weapon, Mr. Shaneyfelt, showing it in approximately the same manner as it is shown in Commission Exhibit 133A, but without it being held by anyone?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you prepare this photograph?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I prepared it myself.
Mr. EISENBERG. And that is an 8- by 10-inch photograph, is it?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 747?

280

Page 281

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 747, and received into evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you prepared a simulated photograph showing this weapon, Commission Exhibit 139, held in approximately the same pose as it appears to be held in Commission Exhibit 133A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I have; yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And that is an 8-by 10-inch photograph?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which you prepared yourself?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I prepared the photograph myself, having the rifle held in approximately the same position as in Exhibit 133A, and I attempted to duplicate the lighting of the photograph, Exhibit 133A.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 748, and was received into evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Where was this photograph prepared, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This was prepared in the FBI laboratory.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was this inside or outside?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Outside.
Mr. EISENBERG. On the roof?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. On the roof of the Justice Building.
Mr. EISENBERG. I see the head of the individual in the photograph is blacked out. Can you explain the reason for that?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I blanked out the head because it was one of the employees of the FBI, and I felt it was desirable to blank out the head since it was not pertinent.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, based upon Exhibit 133A, upon your reproductions of Exhibit 133A, consisting of the Exhibits Nos. 746 A through E; and upon your photograph of the rifle, Exhibit 747, and your simulation of 133A, Exhibit 748---have you formed an opinion concerning whether Exhibit 139, the rifle used in the assassination, is the same or similar to the rifle pictured in Exhibit 133A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us that opinion?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the same.
I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences. I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.
I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "this point," you are pointing to the right side of the weapon, to a point approximately 14 to 15 inches in front of the bolt when the bolt is turned down--is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, looking at this Commission Exhibit 139, the weapon, I see that the stock is curved downward, about 8 inches--at a point approximately 8 inches--from the butt of the weapon, and that it then re-curves upward at an angle of approximately 10° to the plane of the forepart of the butt--is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I will hand you Commission Exhibits 746 A through E, and I will ask you to select from those exhibits the photograph which best brings out the various details of the weapon.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I believe that the contour of the stock is best shown in Commission Exhibit 746E.

281
731-220 O--64--vol.IV----19

Page 282

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, could you take----
Mr. McCLOY. Is that better shown than in the larger pictures?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I believe it is; yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you take a marking pencil, Mr. Shaneyfelt, and circle the point at which the curve and recurve appear to show, and mark that circle with an A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. You circled a point which is marked predominantly by a highlight, is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, without tampering with the original, 133A, I wonder whether you could show to the Commissioners the highlight as it appears on the original photograph?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the highlight is right at that point there, the bright spot at that point.
Mr. McCLOY. I think I might say for the record, I don't believe you identified the place where these photographs were purported to be sited. As I understand it these are from the Neely residence?
Mr. EISENBERG. No, sir; I think they were located in the Paine garage. The Neely residence----
Mr. McCLOY The photographs were located in the Paine garage. I am talking about the site of the photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir; I think we will show that with independent testimony.
Mr. McCLOY In the garden of the Neely residence.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, I will hand you Exhibits 747 and 748, which are the pictures of the rifle and the simulated picture approximating 133A, and I will ask you to again mark with a circle designated A the curve and recurve of the stock of 139.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Here.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you compare the manner in which the curve and re-curve marked "A" appears on these photographs with the manner in which it appears on 746, the photograph you have- 746E, the photograph you circled earlier?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. At a point approximately 6 to 8 inches from the base of the stock, where the stock curves downward, there is a nob formed, and on that nob there is a strong highlight which appears in photograph 746E, and in the simulated photograph, and the photograph of the rifle. The actual stock curves slightly around that highlight, and then recurves back up toward the bolt, and this is visible in Exhibit 746E, and in the simulated photographs 748 and 747.
Mr. EISENBERG. So again in 747 and 748 the recurve appears primarily as a highlight; is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. That is the most outstanding point.
Mr. EISENBERG. I also observe, Mr. Shaneyfelt, the telescopic sight on Exhibit 139, the weapon. Referring again to 746E, your reproduction, which shows somewhat greater detail because of the contrast, could you circle the telescopic sight appearing in that picture, and mark it "B"?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Right here.
Mr. EISENBERG. I wonder whether you could again show to the Commissioners the telescopic sight on the original 133A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Along that area, just at the base of the hand. It runs right across from this area to the base of the hand below the rifle and above the bolt.
Mr. McCLOY. It is quite apparent, isn't it?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is quite apparent.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, again referring to 746E, could you circle the end of the weapon, the end of the barrel of the weapon, and mark it "C"?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Here.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, towards the upper right of the point you have marked as the end of the weapon there is a little mark of some type right near the point which you have marked "C."
Is that mark part of the end of the weapon?

282

Page 283

Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I interpret that mark as a shadow on the building, a slight shadow on the building.
Mr. EISENBERG. Just to make that clear, could you draw an arrow within your circle pointing to the end of the weapon?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have done it.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, I hand you a negative which, for the record, appears to be a negative of 133B, which is the photograph showing the weapon held slightly above and to the right, and I ask you if you are familiar with this negative?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, have you examined this negative to deter- mine whether the picture 133B is in fact a print made directly or indirectly from the negative?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. I have examined it for that purpose and determined that Exhibit 133B is a print from this negative.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this negative introduced into evidence as Exhibit 749?
Mr. McCLOY. Have you any other identification as to this negative as to where it was found?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; for the record only, nothing that this witness can testify to----
Mr. McCLOY. State for the record where it was found.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, this was also found at one of Oswald's residences, I believe the Paine address at which Marina was staying at the time Oswald was apprehended.
Mr. McCLOY. This will be proved?
Mr. EISENBERG. This will be proved separately.
The CHAIRMAN. Will this negative deteriorate as time goes on?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No.
The CHAIRMAN. It will not?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It should not.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Normally this depends on the processing, how well it has been processed and how well it has been fixed and washed. If it were going to deteriorate it would have begun by now.
The CHAIRMAN. I see and it has not yet begun?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It has not begun. There is no indication that there will be any extensive deterioration.
Representative FORD. Have we shown any place in the record that that print or a negative came from a camera----
Mr. EISENBERG. That is what I was going to proceed to do, sir. Mr. Chairman, may we have this admitted as Exhibit 749?
Mr. McCLOY. Admitted.
(Commission Exhibit No. 749 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. I asked you before whether you could say whether this negative, which is now 749, had been used directly or indirectly to make the print 133B?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you say whether it had been used either directly or indirectly?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my opinion that it was used directly to make the print. However, I cannot specifically eliminate the possibility of an internegative or the possibility of this photograph having been copied, a negative made by copying a photograph similar to this from which this print was made.
I think this is highly unlikely, because if this were the result of a copied negative, there would normally be evidence that I could detect, such as a loss of detail and imperfections that show up due to this added process.
Although a very expertly done rephotographing and reprinting cannot positively be eliminated, I am reasonably sure it was made directly from the negative.

283

Page 284

Mr. EISENBERG. But at any rate if it was not made directly it was made indirectly? The only process that could have intervened was a rephotographing of the photograph and making a negative and then a new print?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, I now hand you an Imperial Reflex Duo Lens camera. Let me state for the record, that this camera was turned over to the FBI by Robert Oswald, the brother of Lee Harvey Oswald, on February 2 1964.
Robert Oswald identified the camera as having belonged to Lee Oswald and stated that he, Robert, had obtained it from the Paine residence in December 1963, several weeks after the assassination.
On February 25, 1964, Marina was given the camera and she identified it as the one which she had used to take the pictures 133A and 133B.
Mr. Shaneyfelt, are you familiar with this camera?
Mr. SHANEYFELT, Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 750?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
(Commission Exhibit No. 750 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive the camera, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was--I can't pinpoint the date exactly, I don't have the notes here for that. It was, I would say, the latter part of February, not too long after it had been recovered on February 24.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was it in working order when you received it?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; it had been slightly damaged.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you explain that?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. In order to be able to make a photograph with the camera, I had to make slight repairs to the shutter lever, which had been beat. I straightened it and cleaned the lens in order to remove the dirt which had accumulated. These were the only things that had to be done before it was usable to make pictures with it.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you clean the inside or the outside of the lens?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The outside of the lens.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the shutter lever you are referring to is the little red-tipped lever protruding at the outside of the camera?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. What did you do with it exactly?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I bent it out straight. It was bent over.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could a layman have performed these repairs?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; he could have.
Mr. EISENBERG. How would you characterize this camera in terms of expense, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is a relatively inexpensive camera. It is what we refer to as a fixed-focus box-type camera. A simple box-type camera with a simple one-shutter speed and no focusing ability, fixed focus.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you know where the camera was made?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was made in the United States At the base of the camera it has the name Imperial Reflex, made in U.S.A., on the front, below the lens.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, did you compare the negative, Exhibit 749, with the camera, Exhibit 750, to determine whether the negative had been taken in that camera to the exclusion of all other cameras?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What conclusion did you come to?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I reached the conclusion that the negative, which is Commission Exhibit 749, was exposed in the camera, Commission Exhibit 750, and no other camera.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain how you were able to arrive at such a conclusion?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I can.
In order to make an examination of this type, it is necessary to make a negative with the camera, using the camera, because the examination is based on the aperture
at the back of the camera, at the film plane.

284

Page 285

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you prepared a photograph of that aperture at the film plane?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have an enlarged photograph of that aperture, that I made so that it would better show the back of the camera, with the back removed to show the film plane opening or aperture.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take this photograph of the back of the camera yourself, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was made under my supervision.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 751?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
(Commission Exhibit No. 751 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. What is the enlargement here, by the way?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Approximately two and a half times.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, having reference to the chart, Mr. Shaneyfelt, could you explain it in a little more detail, the basis of your examination?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the basis of the examination was a close microscopic study of the negative made in the camera to study the shadowgraph that is made of the edge of the aperture.
As the film is placed across the aperture of the camera, and the shutter is opened, light comes through and exposes the film only in the opening within the edges. Where the film is out over the edges of the aperture it is not exposed, and your result is an exposed negative with a clear edge, and on the negative then, the edges of that exposure of the photograph, are actually shadowgraphs of the edges of the aperture.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you circle or mark with arrows the edges you are referring to as "these edges" or "this edge," that is, the edges of the aperture opening at the plane of the film?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Representative FORD. This would be true in every picture taken?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That would be true of every picture taken and is true of virtually every camera--every roll-film type camera. It would not be true of a press-type camera where the film is loaded into separate holders; then the holder becomes the thing that will leave identifying characteristics.
On any 35 mm. or Leica camera, roll-film camera, box cameras of all types, having an arrangement, where the film goes across an opening leaving an exposed area at the aperture and unexposed area around the aperture, this would be true.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "virtually every camera" you are including every type of camera with this type of aperture?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I would include every camera with this type of film arrangement and aperture.
Mr. EISENBERG. You held up a negative before----
The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment, gentlemen, you will excuse me, I must go over to the Court now. You will be able to proceed the rest of the day, will you?
Fine. I will be back as soon as I finish.
(At this point the Chief Justice left the hearing room.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, you were holding up a negative which appears to be a negative of a simulated photograph you showed us before, Exhibit 748. Is it such a negative?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is true. That is the negative from which that exhibit was made. The negative was exposed in the camera which is marked Commission Exhibit No. 750. I exposed it myself.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this negative admitted as 752?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted. That is the negative from which that exhibit was made?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
(Commission Exhibit No. 752 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr. McCLOY. And you took that picture?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I took that picture myself.
Representative FORD. Is this a recognized technique or procedure used in or among experts such as yourself?

285

Page 286

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. We have used this technique of camera identification with film on several occasions. It doesn't arise too often. As it normally arises, the majority of examinations that I have made in this connection are the identification of a camera that has been stolen and the serial number removed so that it can't be identified, the owner cannot identify it. We then take the owner's film and the camera that has been recovered and make this examination and determine that this is in fact the camera that the owner's film was exposed in, thereby showing ownership.
So, it is a recognized technique, we do it regularly.
Mr. EISENBERG. And you have performed such examinations yourself, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, what is the basis of your statement, the theoretical basis of your statement, that every camera with this type of back aperture arrangement is unique in the characteristics of the shadowgraph it makes on the negative?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is because of the minute variations that even two cameras from the same mold will have. Additional handwork on cameras, or filing the edges where a little bit of plastic or a little bit of metal stays on, make individual characteristics apart from those that would be general characteristics on all of them from the same mold.
In addition, as the film moves across the camera and it is used for a considerable length of time, dirt and debris tend to accumulate a little or if the aperture is painted, little lumps in the paint will make little bumps along that edge that would make that then individually different from every other camera.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is this similar then to toolmark identification?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Very similar, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you prepared a chart on which you have illustrated some of the more prominent points which led you to your identification, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, this chart shows on the left a copy of your simulated picture number 748 and on the right a copy of the picture 133B, is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. And you prepared this chart yourself?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 753, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
(Commission Exhibit No. 753 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Before we get to this chart, I wonder whether you could take the negative itself, that is, Exhibit 749, and place it over the camera, Exhibit 750, so that the Commissioners can see how it runs across these across the sides of the aperture you have been discussing?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. I might state that this film at the time it is put in the camera is in a long strip, and at the time of processing it is cut apart into separate negatives. There is an unexposed area between each exposure, and they are cut apart for printing and storage and returning. So that then this would be in a long strip of film--the camera being held in this position, which is the normal position for taking a photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. And that is upright?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Upright--will give you an image which on the film is upside down because of the light reflecting from the face, going through the lens and going down here; so this negative, Commission Exhibit 749, would have been on the film plane in this manner at the time the exposure was made.
The blackened area that you see would be the area that was exposed, and because of the aperture frame, the clear area around the edge was not exposed.
Mr. McCLOY. Yes.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. And this edge between the dark and the light then becomes the shadowgraph of this aperture of the camera.
Mr. EISENBERG. Your Commission Exhibit 753 illustrates that shadowgraph, or actually shows that shadowgraph, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct, the charts were printed to show the entire

286

Page 287

negative and reproduce the shadowgraphs of Commission Exhibit 749 and Commission Exhibit 752.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you refer now to that chart?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, sir. Referring to the chart then, the examination was made by comparing the edges, not only for size but general contour, and I have marked with numbers from 1 through 8 some of the more outstanding points of identification.
The eight points are not all that accounted for the identification. The identification is based on the fact that not only those eight points but every place else is the same on both negatives.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the contours are also the same?
Mr. SHANEYFELT, The contours are the same, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. So you have taken these eight points for demonstrative purposes?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Rather than as being actually what you rested your identification on, is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Point No. 1 which is in the lower right hand corner, as you view the picture of the chart----
Mr. McCLOY. Lower left-hand corner?
Mr. EISENBERG. As you view it, lower left hand?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. As you view it, lower left hand of both of the charts, shows a notch that makes the shadowgraph other than a straight line.
Representative FORD. This is very clear.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This appears the same in both charts. Point No. 2 is another similar notch except that it is a double one, and the little notches are smaller. This again is the same in both charts.
Point No. 3 is more of an indentation, a slight curvature where the edge curves out a little and back in toward the corner. It is not as pronounced a dent.
Point No. 4 is only visible by looking at the chart in this direction because----
Mr. EISENBERG. This direction being from left to right as you look?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Left to right, because although this line looks straight it actually dips down and back up again.
Mr. EISENBERG. "This line" is the line at the top of that exhibit?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The line of the shadowgraph at the top of the photograph.
Representative FORD. That is point No. 4?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Four. Point No. 5 again is a slight dent or bulge in the edge and shows in both charts.
No. 6 is a more shallow and wide indentation along the edge.
Point No. 7 is again the same type of a characteristic as the others, but a little different shape.
Point No. 8 is a little fragment of bakelite or debris extending out from the edge, that shows in both of the charts in the same manner. In addition the corner at eight tends to curve in towards the picture as it approaches the corner, there tends to be a curvature in and not a nice neat square corner.
In addition, between points 2 and 3 there is a very definite S-curve where the bakelite from which the camera is made apparently warped slightly making this S-curve, and this is apparent in both charts. Again, more apparent as you hold the photograph flat and look down the line.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, the margins of the shadowgraph in the right-hand side of the chart, which is based upon 133B, look somewhat larger than the margins on the left-hand side.
Could you explain that?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was merely a matter of masking during the printing process.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is to say it is the interior which is crucial rather than the width of the margin?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. McCLOY. This mark along the bottom appears in one. How do you explain that?

287

Page 288

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. McCloy is pointing to a mark along the right-hand side, a white mark along the bottom of the shadowgraph.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; that is the cut edge of the negative, where this particular negative has been cut very close to the shadowgraph line and this then appears as a white line along the chart and represents the actual edge of the negative.
The other three edges of that negative and all four edges of the other negative do not show in the photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was this chart actually prepared by use of exhibits--by the negatives, Exhibits 749 and 752, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I made the charts directly from those negatives.
Mr. EISENBERG. Approximately what is the enlargement here?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Approximately eight times.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, can you explain why eight times?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Six to eight, it is in that area.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why the enlargement of 133B is haloed with a white, light halo?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the reason for that was to print the photograph so that it would be clearly a photograph of the negative and show the individual in the picture but not print too dark around the outside edges to give the best possible reproduction of the shadowgraph.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Captain Fritz of the Dallas Police has stated that in his interrogations, Oswald--Lee Harvey Oswald--stated, in effect, that while the face in Exhibit 133A was his face, the rest of the picture was not of him--this is, that it was a composite of some type.
Have you examined 133A and 133B to determine whether either or both are composite pictures?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. And have you--can you give us your conclusion on that question?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite. I have examined many composite photographs, and there is always an inconsistency, either in lighting of the portion that is added, or the configuration indicating a different lens used for the part that was added to the original photograph, things many times that you can't point to and say this is a characteristic, or that is a characteristic, but they have definite variations that are not consistent throughout the picture. I found no such characteristics in this picture.
In addition, with a composite it is always necessary to make a print that you then make a pasteup of. In this instance paste the face in, and rephotograph it and then retouch out the area where the head was cut out, which would leave a characteristic that would be retouched out on the negative and then that would be printed.
Normally, this retouching can be seen under magnification in the resulting composite--points can be seen where the edge of the head had been added and it hadn't been entirely retouched out.
This can nearly always be detected under magnification. I found no such characteristics in these pictures.
Representative FORD. Did you use the technique of magnification in your analysis?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
In addition, in this instance regarding Commission Exhibit 133B which I have just stated, I have identified as being photographed or exposed in the camera which is Exhibit 750, for this to be a composite, they would have had to make a picture of the background with an individual standing there, and then substitute the face, and retouch it and then possibly rephotograph it and retouch that negative, and make a print, and then photograph it with this camera, which is Commission Exhibit 750, in order to have this negative which we have identified with the camera, and is Commission Exhibit 749.

288

Page 289

This to me is beyond reasonable doubt, it just doesn't seem that it-would be at all possible, in this particular photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, did you attempt to determine whether 133A had been photographed through the camera, Commission Exhibit 750?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I did not, because in order to make an examination to determine whether a photograph is made with a particular camera, you must have the negative or you must have a print of the negative that shows that shadowgraph area, and Commission Exhibit 133A does not show that shadowgraph area.
Therefore, no comparison could be made. It is not possible.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does the shadowgraph area show on 133B?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; it does not.
Mr. EISENBERG. Why does it not show on either 133 A or B?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Because they are printed in a normal processing procedure, where this area is normally blocked out to give a nice white border and make the picture a little more artistic. In the printing process, masks are placed over the area, or the shadowgraph, in order to cover it up, and the resulting print is a photograph with a nice white border.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that you have to have the negative to make the kind of identification you have made for us earlier?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Looking at 133B, are the observable characteristics of the weapon pictured in this picture----shown in this picture similar to the observable characteristics of Exhibit 139, the weapon used in the assassination?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; they are less apparent in this photograph because it is a photograph of the bottom, or the base of the rifle, the bottom of the rifle along the trigger-guard area, but it does show this bottom of the rifle in that photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. Looking at 133A and 133B, do the lighting conditions seem to have been similar?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. They are consistent, entirely consistent, in both photographs, the lighting on the face is the same, the lighting on the background is identical, there appear to be no major differences or no significant differences.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I would like to draw your attention for a moment to this sling on Exhibit 139, and I would like to state for the record that this sling is not thought to be actually a rifle sling, but some type of homemade sling, that is, the firearms expert has so testified.
Does this sling appear in either Commission Exhibits 133A or 133B?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my opinion that it does not. Commission Exhibit 133A has such a small portion of the sling showing that it--you cannot establish that it is or is not the same sling that is presently on the, rifle.
However, Commission Exhibit 133B does show the sling, since it shows the bottom of the rifle, and I find it to be different from the sling that is presently on the rifle. It has the appearance of being a piece of rope that is tied at both ends, rather than a leather sling, and it is my opinion that it is a different sling than is presently on the rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Just again a homemade simulated sling, is that it?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It has that appearance, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. You testified that you have a much smaller view of the sling, or what passes for a sling, on 133A than on 133B. Is the sling or simulated sling on 133A, that portion of it which is visible, consistent with the sling on 133B?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is entirely consistent.
Mr. EISENBERG. Also looks like a piece of rope, is that it?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it has that appearance.
Representative FORD. Can you tell from a negative about when it was, the picture was taken, or can you develop any time from that?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is possible on some negatives. In this instance it is not. On some negatives there is a numbering system along the edge that is ceded by the company that indicates manufacturing date, approximate manufacturing date, and it is usually by year, so that you could state that a film was coded by the company in 1947, therefore, it could not have been used prior to 1947.

289

Page 290

This is about as far as one can go in the establishment of time that a picture was taken from the actual film. This cannot be done in this instance.
Representative FORD. I notice on some prints which are now developed commercially that they have a date on the edge.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Representative FORD. Is this a universal practice now?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; this varies with the different processors. It is used by the large companies. I believe Eastman Kodak uses it. Your larger processing companies use it, but your smaller, maybe one-man shop or small photographic shop will probably not use it. It is at the discretion of the shop actually.
Representative FORD. Can you tell from a print which has been developed which processing plant processed that print?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Not without some specific stamp of the processing company on it.
Mr. EISENBERG. I think we should add here for the record that the sling which is presently on the rifle is, as any other sling, a removable sling, and not one that is fixed into the rifle.
Mr. McCLOY. It seems to me that this band here in Exhibit 746 is a, might very well be a reproduction of this, this lighter side of this rather enlarged leather part of the sling.
It seems to be just about the same length.
Representative FORD. That is, what is on the rifle.
Mr. McCLOY. Which is on the rifle. I wonder, and here it is again in Commission Exhibit 133A--133A has that---of which it is an enlargement. Isn't it possible that is a reproduction of that leather sling?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It could be possible.
Mr. McCLOY. This is not a string by any means.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is true; it is broader. I get the impression by this shadow at the top, closest to the rifle, just below the bolt, there is a faint shadow there that would indicate a double string or rope, and it then becomes narrower as you are looking at the edge of two ropes lying together. On the Exhibit 133B I get the same interpretation of a double-rope effect, partly because of the knot-tying and so on, and you see the shadow between the strands slightly in some areas, and, as I stated before, I cannot, because of the limited amount of that showing, say that it is not the sling. I find it more consistent with the sling showing in Exhibit 133B, which is very definitely----
Mr. McCLOY. A bowknot--133B seems to have a knot at the swivels.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. Which doesn't appear on the rifle now.
Mr. EISENBERG. Shaneyfelt, I now hand you the cover of Life magazine for February 21, 1964, which consists of a photograph quite similar to Exhibit 133A, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this photographic cover?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this introduced, Mr. Chairman, as 754?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
(Commission Exhibit No. 754 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you compared Exhibit 754 with Commission Exhibit 133A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. What is your conclusion on the basis of that comparison?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my opinion that it is the same picture reproduced on the front of Life magazine, which is Commission Exhibit 754.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does Commission Exhibit 754 appear to have been retouched in any significant way?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it does.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show the Commission that retouching?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I could. I might state that it has been my experience in the field of reproduction of photographs for publication, in which a halftone screen is made from which the photograph is then printed, it is normal procedure, and was at the time I worked for a newspaper, to retouch the photograph to intensify highlights, take out undesirable shadows, generally enhance the picture by retouching the photograph so that when it is then made into a halftone

290

Page 291

strip pattern for reproduction by printing, this retouching, if it is done well, does not show as retouching but appears to be a part of the original photograph.
This retouching is done either by brush or by airbrush, which is a device for spraying gray or shades of gray or black, onto the photograph. I point to the area between the legs of the individual on Life magazine.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you circle that and mark it A on Exhibit 754?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Suppose I use arrows.
Mr. EISENBERG. Oh, sure.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. On Exhibit 746B, there is a shadow between the individual's legs.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you mark that A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I will mark that A. In that same area of the photograph on Exhibit 754, that dark shadow has been removed in this area, I will mark that A.
Mr. EISENBERG. It appears there is a continuous fence slat there, where none appears----
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the shadow has been removed. Lower down in that same area of the legs, near the calf of the leg, again, and I will mark that B, the shadow----
Mr. EISENBERG. B on 754?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. 754; has been softened but not entirely eliminated. That same area is marked B on Commission Exhibit 746B.
Mr. EISENBERG. Has the weapon been retouched?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The weapon has been retouched by placing a highlight along the stock almost up to the end of the bolt. The highlight is brushed right across the top of the highlight that we have previously discussed at the nob or the curvature of the stock where it goes down and then back up to the curve.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you put an arrow pointing to the brushed-in highlight and mark it C?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you put an arrow pointing to the original highlight and mark it D; both on 754 and 746B? You had earlier marked with a circle 746E at point A, showing the highlight as it appears in 133A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Of course, this highlight does not appear in that same area of Commission Exhibit 746B.
Mr. EISENBERG. You mean the highlight marked C on 754?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Looking at the photograph, at the weapon, the stock appears to be straight, which does not correspond to the Exhibit 139. As I understand your testimony, this is simply a retouching; this effect of a straight stock is simply achieved by retouching the photograph or doctoring it?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is my opinion. I would refer to it as retouching rather than doctoring, because what has been done has been retouched, and doctoring infers an attempt to disguise.
Mr. EISENBERG. I didn't mean to imply such a thing--but retouched, then?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the actual highlight showing the curve and recurve still appears as point D?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you circle--do you see a telescopic sight on the Life cover of 754?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I do.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you draw an arrow marking that E? Would it have been possible to retouch the photograph so that the telescopic sight does not appear?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Oh, yes; that is possible. With a halftone process--it is possible to retouch, and then the halftone process destroys the retouching characteristics and makes it appear as a normal photograph rather than a retouched photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. And again, based upon your newspaper experience and your

291

Page 292

experience as a photographer generally, could you state the possible purpose of such retouching?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The purpose of the retouching in reproduction work is merely to enhance the detail so that it will not be lost in the engraving process.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "enhance the detail," why would a stock be retouched so as not only to enhance the detail, but actually to change the apparent configuration? Could you conceive of any reason for that?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I think the reason that the stock was retouched straight in the photograph on Life magazine, and my interpretation would be that the individual retouching it does not have a familiarity with rifles and did not realize there was curvature there, and in doing it just made a straight-line highlight without even considering whether that curved or not. There was curvature in that area which is not readily apparent--it is quite indistinct--and I think it was just made without realizing that there was curvature there.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, the individual might have thought he was actually enhancing detail rather than putting in detail which was not present in the original?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is there anything else you would like to point out in this photograph, Exhibit 754?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. There is other retouching at the shoulder, to the left of the photograph as we view it; that area has had some retouching of the highlights. Along the barrel of the gun, or the stock of the gun above the hand, there is retouching, a little highlight enhancement there. These are all generally consistent with the type of retouching that we have previously discussed and I have previously pointed out.
Representative FORD. I am not clear why they would retouch, from a photographic point of view.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. They retouch because in the halftone process there is a loss of detail, and had they not retouched this photograph, had they not put the highlight along the rifle stock, then you would only have seen a black area. They were afraid you would only see a black area and you wouldn't get the definition here of the rifle. You lose the detail, and you would lose the view of the rifle. You wouldn't see the rifle there because this line would be lost. The same way along here. This one very definitely, had they not retouched it, it would have blended in and been a continuous tone of dark gray all across there.
Representative FORD. That is--up here that is, above the hand on the stock?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you said a highlight "along the rifle stock," you actually meant on top, above the rifle stock?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The upper edge.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it the upper edge, or is it a place that does not correspond to the rifle stock?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is an edge along the rifle stock that corresponds. I am speaking now of the highlight above the hand.
Mr. EISENBERG. No; you said before, in describing the highlight which you can see, you said they drew a highlight "along" the rifle the rifle stock. Actually it was drawn, as I understand it, considerably above the edge of the actual rifle stock?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; that is true.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you used this technique yourself?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have done retouching of photographs for halftones; yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you said before that this retouching is done by air-brush or brush, what medium is used in the brush or airbrush to achieve the effect?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is a water-soluble pigment, and it is available in varying shades of from white to black; it is available in different shades of gray tones, so that you could actually match the gray tone of the picture since in these instances we are dealing entirely with gray, shades of gray---and you

292

Page 293

select a gray that is not too prominent that would give you a highlight that would look normal.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that the negative is painted, so to speak?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The actual photograph is painted.
Mr. EISENBERG. The photograph is painted. Now, would there be any conceivable reason for eliminating in a retouching the telescopic sight?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The only reason again would be to enhance the detail. I cannot determine from Commission Exhibit 754 whether there was retouching around the stock. There are indications that there is some retouching--I mean around the telescopic sight. It appears to me they did do some retouching around the telescopic sight which we have marked as point E on Commission Exhibit 754.
Mr. EISENBERG. Without specific reference to 754, might an individual without experience in rifles have thought that the detail corresponding to the telescopic sight was extraneous detail, and blocked it out?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it could be done.
Mr. EISENBERG. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCLOY. Do you have anything?
Representative FORD. No further questions.
Mr. McCLOY. It may be because I am, and I am sure it is, because of my ignorance in regard to this composition of photographs, but the negative of which we have a copy is that from which this photograph was taken; isn't that right? [Referring to Exhibit 133A.]
Mr. SHANEYFELT. We do not have the negative of this photograph.
Mr. McCLOY. You have the negative of this? [Referring to Exhibit 133B.]
Mr. SHANEYFELT. We have the negative of 133B.
Mr. McCLOY. You have the negative of 133B. That negative in itself shows no doctoring or composition at all?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It shows absolutely no doctoring or composition.
Mr. McCLOY. So that the only composition that could have been made would have been in this process which you have described of picture on picture and negative and then photographing?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. And then finally rephotographing with this camera.
Mr. McCLOY. Rephotographing with this camera, this very camera?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct, and this then, to me, becomes in the realm of the impossible.
Mr. McCLOY. Yes. There is nothing in Exhibit 754 that, to you, insinuates any sinister type of touching up?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. This is entirely innocent retouching, completely normal operation for a newspaper cut or a magazine reproduction.
Mr. McCLOY. I think I have no other questions.
Mr. EISENBERG. Just two other questions. Is there anything in the negative of 133B--that is, Commission Exhibit 749---to indicate whether it was developed commercially or not commercially?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I cannot determine that from the negative.
Mr. EISENBERG. And finally, I hand you a page from that same issue of Life, the issue of February 21, 1964, page 80, which has a photograph similar to the cover photograph, and I ask you whether this photograph appearing on page 80 appears to you to be the same as the photograph used on the cover?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it appears to be the same photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does the retouching appear to be the same in both?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The retouching is consistent; yes. It appears to be slightly clearer in the photograph on page 80; the highlight along the stock is sharper and more crisp and in more detail.
Mr. EISENBERG. Again you say "highlight along the stock."
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Along the stock.
Mr. EISENBERG. You mean the highlight introduced by the retoucher?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. And the scope appears to be much clearer in the photograph on page 80 than the photograph on the front cover, which is Exhibit 754, and is much clearer than is apparent in the photograph 133A.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you account for that?

293

Page 294

Mr. SHANEYFELT. My only explanation would be retouching, from retouching" around the scope. The primary reason for the additional clarity between the entire photograph, without specific reference to the scope, the clarity that I mentioned in the entire photograph on page 80 as compared with the cover is, I believe, basically the fact that the cover is so enlarged. There is a tendency on big enlargements to separate the detail out by enlargement so it appears not as clear, so a smaller picture will sometimes look clearer than one of the same picture that has been enlarged. This would account for some of the additional detail and more distinct sharpness in the photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. May this photograph on page 80 be introduced as 755?
Mr. McCLOY. It nay be admitted.
(Commission Exhibit No. 755 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. One final question: Can you compare the sharpness of the scope on Exhibit 755 with the sharpness on Exhibit 746E, one of the reproductions-you prepared?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there is the same difference in sharpness between the photograph on Commission Exhibit 755, which is page 80 of Life magazine, and the photograph which I made from the Government's Exhibit 133A, which is Commission Exhibit 746E. Again this difference in sharpness, I believe is due to retouching in part, and in part to the picture in Life magazine being smaller, and thereby the detail is not spread out so much. It is a combination of retouching of the photograph and size.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my examination.
Mr. McCLOY. I am further interested as you look at this rifle as it lies on the table you can see the highlight, even without any photograph, very clearly. The shine centers on the curvature of the stock. It is quite interesting.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is very apparent on Exhibit 748 also, where you get the duplication of the lighting. This nob tends to reflect more light.
Mr. McCLOY. It is obvious that it is right up there as a conspicuous highlight. I didn't realize that it was so indicative of the curve of the stock of the rifle.
Thank you very much indeed for your cooperation and very enlightening and very interesting testimony.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Thank you.
(Recess.)