Post by Rob Caprio on Jan 6, 2023 18:13:53 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
2.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TN-mBkvCfNI/AAAAAAAAGlE/rqLPZTpSHPo/s400/shaneyfelt.bmp
We have seen that FBI photographic expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt said he could NOT positively ID the rifle in the Backyard Photographs (BYP’s) as being the same as CE-139 (the alleged murder weapon of John F. Kennedy (JFK)). He was also asked about some other key issues in this case.
Let’s look a little deeper at this testimony.
*****************************************
He would be asked about Captain Fritz’s comment regarding Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) statement that his head was superimposed on someone else’s body in the BYP’s.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A few things need to be mentioned regarding this comment by Shaneyfelt. He said he could NOT rule out “extremely expert composites” and this is a good possibility in this case. I doubt they would have any old person do these composites. Also, I doubt you would need to magnify very much to see the line going across the face below the lips and above the chin. They will NOT discuss this at all.
Furthermore, LHO was very explicit in who he said did the composites, but the Warren Commission (WC) of course did NOT mention it.
IF we go to their Report on page 625 we will see this statement by LHO:
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0325a.gif
Captain J.W. Fritz exhibited to Lee Harvey Oswald a photograph which had been obtained by the Dallas Police Department in a search, by a search warrant, of the garage of the residence of Mrs. Ruth Paine, located at Irving, Texas, which photograph reflects Oswald holding a rifle and wearing a holstered pistol…He stated that the head of the individual in the photograph could be his but that it was entirely possible that the POLICE DEPARTMENT HAD SSUPERIMPOSED THIS PART OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OVER THE BODY OF SOMEONE ELSE. He pointed out that numerous news media had snapped his photograph during the day and the possibility existed that the POLICE DOCTORED up this photograph. (emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0325a.htm
This statement is key for several reasons. Firstly, notice how LHO is saying the picture was in all likelihood “doctored”, and secondly, that the Dallas Police Department (DPD) did the doctoring! Two witnesses would say in their testimony pretty much the same thing.
Mr. STERN - It was at this interview, was it not, that Oswald was shown photographs of himself holding a rifle and wearing a pistol in a holster?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - That's correct.
Mr. STERN - What was his comment about the photograph?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - His comment, as I recall, he was asked if this was his Photograph, and his comment was that the head of the photograph was his, but that it could have been superimposed over the body of someone else. He Pointed out that he had been apparently photographed by news media numerous times in proceeding from the homicide and robbery bureau to the lineup and back, and that is how they probably got the photograph of his face, and he went into a long discussion of how much he knew about photography, and knew that this--his face could be superimposed over somebody else's body holding the gun and pistol and so forth.
Now unless Bookhout means the media doctored the photo the ONLY other group who could benefit from these photographs would be the DPD (or FBI, CIA, ONI, DIA, etc…). On page 628 of the WC Report we see the same comment from Inspector Thomas Kelly of the Secret Service (SS):
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0326b.gif
Found among the effects were two different poses in snapshot type photographs taken of Oswald holding a rifle in one hand and holding up a copy of a paper called the “Militant” and “The Worker” in the other hand. Oswald was wearing a revolver in a holster on the right side. This photograph was enlarged by the DALLAS POLICE LABORATORIES and was used as a basis of additional questioning of Oswald at approximately 6:00 P.M. that same evening..
This interview was conducted with Oswald for the purpose of displaying to him the blow-ups of photographs showing him holding a rifle and a pistol which were found as a result of a the search warrant for the garage of Mrs. Ruth Paine…When the photographs were presented to Oswald he scoured at them saying they were fake photographs; that he had been photographed a number of times the day before by the POLICE and apparently after they photographed him THEY SUPERIMPOSED on this photograph a rifle and put a gun in his pocket(?). (WCR, p. 628) (Emphasis mine)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0326b.htm
Quote off
The above is very hard to read as the ink is very light in the copy found on numerous sites, but the gist is clear—LHO was blaming the DPD for making this photograph(s) he was shown.
Now back to Shaneyfelt. The WC defenders who claim it was shown LHO’s camera was used to take the photographs should read this comment.
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
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.
WC defenders can’t say the Imperil Reflex camera was used to take these photographs. End of story.
The single posting of a BYP that made LHO look the most guilty was the photograph that appeared on the cover of the February 21, 1964, edition of LIFE magazine. IT allegedly shows LHO holding the alleged murder weapon and cemented his guilt to many Americans. This photograph was denoted with CE-754. Here is what Shaneyfelt said about it.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0277a.jpg
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. 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.
This is important as it shows the photograph has been changed from the original form. IT does NOT matter why or whether it is irrelevant to the main theme as expressed either.
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 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.
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.
So a body shadow has been REMOVED.
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----
The body shadow was removed and replaced with a non-existent “fence slat.”
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.
The rifle has been retouched in the photograph.
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.
I agree, “doctoring” would apply to the adding of LHO’s head onto the body!
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.
Shaneyfelt is admitting you can retouch photographs and LEAVE NO TRACE to the vast majority of us.
Mr. EISENBERG. And again, based upon your newspaper experience and your 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.
They didn’t just “enhance the detail” though, did they? NO, they changed the rifle and removed a shadow so far.
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.
Now we see retouching for the area left of the shoulder too. He can say this is normal, but the above statement regarding the shadow is NOT.
Why NOT call the person who worked on the photo for LIFE instead of asking Shaneyfelt why they would do this?
Also, if it is so normal why did even the WC lawyer try and correct him?
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.
What was the purpose of this? Why did they do it? Was it just for more detail as claimed or for some other reason? What about the telescopic scope? Remember, LHO allegedly used one to shoot JFK with.
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.
Why was the WC asking him to guess what someone else might or might not do? Or why they would do it? Again, why NOT call the person that actually did the retouching at LIFE? The only thing we have to rely on is in the twenty-six volumes. It is a letter from LIFE to Mr. Rankin of the WC. It can be found in Shaneyfelt Ex. 12.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pages/WH_Vol21_0239a.gif
…The prints you received were indeed the PRISTINE versions of the ones we used; they came from the same copy negative (I assume the Commission has the original negative). I thought you could compare them with the published cover and figure out how much retouching was done.
But here is the retouched print. You can take out the retouching (which we put in simply to make it more reproduceable because the original was not exactly the acme of photographic perfection) with a piece of cotton soaked in water or a finger moistened with saliva and have the original as we received it. I note, on close examination, that the retoucher was a little careless in making the rifle stock straight instead of a with a slight dip. There is a little more retouching around the bolt but a comparison with the original will convince you, I’m sure that nothing ESSENTIAL has been changed. (emphasis mine)
It was signed by Edward K. Thompson, Editor of LIFE magazine.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0239a.htm
Quote off
First of all, if the copy that LIFE received was “pristine” why did they need so much retouching? IF they were from a copy and NOT that good, why did the WC just NOT provide the ORIGINAL negative to LIFE to fix this issue? IF they couldn’t release it, then why NOT wait on the cover. Why was there a RUSH to have this photo published SEVEN MONTHS before the WC would reach their conclusion?
Secondly, who decided what was ESSENTIAL to the message of the photograph? Thompson said “nothing essential has been changed”, but what does this mean? We saw the shape of the rifle was changed, the scope was eliminated, and the body shadow between the legs was removed. What else possibly was messed with that we don’t know about? Remember, Shaneyfelt said, “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.”
Newsweek also would send a letter to Mr. Rankin about this photograph (which appeared in their March 2, 1964, issue) and what they did with it and this is in Shaneyfelt Ex. 16.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pages/WH_Vol21_0241a.gif
Since the question of retouching of this photograph in various publications has been raised as an issue by CRITICS of the investigation, I believe that your inquiry warrants a somewhat more detailed response than you have invited.
I am informed by our editors that the photograph that they received was so poor in quality that, as a matter of routine procedure, it was retouched to improve it for reproduction. We are unaware that it was published anywhere WITHOUT RETOUCHING OF SOME KIND.
In retouching at Newsweek, the technician inadvertently brushed out the telescopic sight which—as we have since had an occasion to note—is visible only so barely in the original photograph that it might well escape any but the closest attention. There was, of course, no intention to alter the substance of the photograph. (emphasis mine)
It was signed by Gibson McCabe—President of Newsweek.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0241a.htm
Quote off
Notice the jab at CRITICS in his letter! I guess if you are searching for the truth and question whether a photograph has been retouched or not you are critic! How could the average person be a “critic” of the investigation in June 1964 anyway? The final report did not come out for three more months and the WC was acting in a CLOSED DOOR FASHION! I just find it funny a president of leading magazine, that is out for the truth supposedly regarding the things they covered, thought searching for the truth made you a critic!
Next, notice the ADMISSION that the photograph was retouched by EVERYONE! Again, if the copy negative they all received was so poor in quality, why was there such a rush to publish it then? What was the urgency of putting this on the cover or in their publications in February and March of 1964?
Newsweek, like LIFE, also brushed out the scope on the rifle supposedly. (Perhaps there was NO scope to brush out?) Notice the comment that it was so hard to see that “only the closest attention” would have spotted it. Well, excuse me, but when you are retouching photographs and planning on PUBLISHING THEM IN YOUR MAGAZINE SHOULD NOT THE CLOSEST ATTENTION be paid? I would think so, but obviously NOT at Newsweek. Then we are just suppose to take his word for it that “no intention to alter the substance of the photograph” occurred.
Shaneyfelt Ex. 17 is a letter from the N.Y. Times to Mr. Rankin.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pages/WH_Vol21_0241b.gif
The New York Times did NOT retouch photograph in any way that would change the facts of the photograph—that is to say, it did NOT alter any essential feature of the photograph. I have our copy in front of us, and the ONLY retouching that has been done is to outline Lee Harvey Oswald’s head and right shoulder, to highlight the stock of the gun HE is holding, to put a CREASE in his trousers and tone DOWN somewhat the SHADOW CAST BY HIS FIGURE.
It was signed by Clifton Daniel—Asst. Managing Editor
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0241b.htm
Quote off
Again, we see the use of the term “essential feature” and again, we have to ask, who decides what is essential? Notice how they had no curiosity regarding the line above the person’s chin though. He flatly states it is LHO when it was never shown the photos were genuine, and certainly NOT by the time of the letter (June 1964). What was the need for a CREASE in his pants? Was that essential? Also, notice how they had to “tone down somewhat the shadow cast by his figure” as well! What was it about this shadow that caused so much concern? Could it be that it did NOT MATCH THE TIME SHOWN BY THE NOSE SHADOW? What other reason could there be to either eliminate it (LIFE) or tone it down somewhat (N.Y. Times)?
The fact retouching took place on this alleged photo of LHO holding the alleged murder weapons is troubling. The fact it took repeated letters by Mr. Rankin to get even these replies is even more troubling. What was the rush to publish these photos if the copy negatives they received were so poor? We should know that answer by now. They wanted to rush this picture before the American people to prepare them for the preconceived outcome that would come in September 1964.
Given the many questions and disturbing issues with these photos (BYP) there should NEVER have been a rush to publish them UNTIL they were worked out, but as we have seen that would mean they would NEVER have been published as nearly SIXTY YEARS LATER none of the questions or issue have been resolved from the WC’s point of view.
The comments by Shaneyfelt and the men of the some of the most important publishing assets of this country sink the conclusion of the WC as their issues were NEVER properly addressed and resolved. In fact, this outline shows us there was a RUSH TO JUDGMENT and the man they had chosen ahead of time would be found guilty NO matter what they found to the contrary.
2.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TN-mBkvCfNI/AAAAAAAAGlE/rqLPZTpSHPo/s400/shaneyfelt.bmp
We have seen that FBI photographic expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt said he could NOT positively ID the rifle in the Backyard Photographs (BYP’s) as being the same as CE-139 (the alleged murder weapon of John F. Kennedy (JFK)). He was also asked about some other key issues in this case.
Let’s look a little deeper at this testimony.
*****************************************
He would be asked about Captain Fritz’s comment regarding Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) statement that his head was superimposed on someone else’s body in the BYP’s.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A few things need to be mentioned regarding this comment by Shaneyfelt. He said he could NOT rule out “extremely expert composites” and this is a good possibility in this case. I doubt they would have any old person do these composites. Also, I doubt you would need to magnify very much to see the line going across the face below the lips and above the chin. They will NOT discuss this at all.
Furthermore, LHO was very explicit in who he said did the composites, but the Warren Commission (WC) of course did NOT mention it.
IF we go to their Report on page 625 we will see this statement by LHO:
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0325a.gif
Captain J.W. Fritz exhibited to Lee Harvey Oswald a photograph which had been obtained by the Dallas Police Department in a search, by a search warrant, of the garage of the residence of Mrs. Ruth Paine, located at Irving, Texas, which photograph reflects Oswald holding a rifle and wearing a holstered pistol…He stated that the head of the individual in the photograph could be his but that it was entirely possible that the POLICE DEPARTMENT HAD SSUPERIMPOSED THIS PART OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OVER THE BODY OF SOMEONE ELSE. He pointed out that numerous news media had snapped his photograph during the day and the possibility existed that the POLICE DOCTORED up this photograph. (emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0325a.htm
This statement is key for several reasons. Firstly, notice how LHO is saying the picture was in all likelihood “doctored”, and secondly, that the Dallas Police Department (DPD) did the doctoring! Two witnesses would say in their testimony pretty much the same thing.
Mr. STERN - It was at this interview, was it not, that Oswald was shown photographs of himself holding a rifle and wearing a pistol in a holster?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - That's correct.
Mr. STERN - What was his comment about the photograph?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - His comment, as I recall, he was asked if this was his Photograph, and his comment was that the head of the photograph was his, but that it could have been superimposed over the body of someone else. He Pointed out that he had been apparently photographed by news media numerous times in proceeding from the homicide and robbery bureau to the lineup and back, and that is how they probably got the photograph of his face, and he went into a long discussion of how much he knew about photography, and knew that this--his face could be superimposed over somebody else's body holding the gun and pistol and so forth.
Now unless Bookhout means the media doctored the photo the ONLY other group who could benefit from these photographs would be the DPD (or FBI, CIA, ONI, DIA, etc…). On page 628 of the WC Report we see the same comment from Inspector Thomas Kelly of the Secret Service (SS):
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0326b.gif
Found among the effects were two different poses in snapshot type photographs taken of Oswald holding a rifle in one hand and holding up a copy of a paper called the “Militant” and “The Worker” in the other hand. Oswald was wearing a revolver in a holster on the right side. This photograph was enlarged by the DALLAS POLICE LABORATORIES and was used as a basis of additional questioning of Oswald at approximately 6:00 P.M. that same evening..
This interview was conducted with Oswald for the purpose of displaying to him the blow-ups of photographs showing him holding a rifle and a pistol which were found as a result of a the search warrant for the garage of Mrs. Ruth Paine…When the photographs were presented to Oswald he scoured at them saying they were fake photographs; that he had been photographed a number of times the day before by the POLICE and apparently after they photographed him THEY SUPERIMPOSED on this photograph a rifle and put a gun in his pocket(?). (WCR, p. 628) (Emphasis mine)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0326b.htm
Quote off
The above is very hard to read as the ink is very light in the copy found on numerous sites, but the gist is clear—LHO was blaming the DPD for making this photograph(s) he was shown.
Now back to Shaneyfelt. The WC defenders who claim it was shown LHO’s camera was used to take the photographs should read this comment.
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
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.
WC defenders can’t say the Imperil Reflex camera was used to take these photographs. End of story.
The single posting of a BYP that made LHO look the most guilty was the photograph that appeared on the cover of the February 21, 1964, edition of LIFE magazine. IT allegedly shows LHO holding the alleged murder weapon and cemented his guilt to many Americans. This photograph was denoted with CE-754. Here is what Shaneyfelt said about it.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0277a.jpg
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. 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.
This is important as it shows the photograph has been changed from the original form. IT does NOT matter why or whether it is irrelevant to the main theme as expressed either.
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 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.
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.
So a body shadow has been REMOVED.
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----
The body shadow was removed and replaced with a non-existent “fence slat.”
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.
The rifle has been retouched in the photograph.
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.
I agree, “doctoring” would apply to the adding of LHO’s head onto the body!
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.
Shaneyfelt is admitting you can retouch photographs and LEAVE NO TRACE to the vast majority of us.
Mr. EISENBERG. And again, based upon your newspaper experience and your 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.
They didn’t just “enhance the detail” though, did they? NO, they changed the rifle and removed a shadow so far.
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.
Now we see retouching for the area left of the shoulder too. He can say this is normal, but the above statement regarding the shadow is NOT.
Why NOT call the person who worked on the photo for LIFE instead of asking Shaneyfelt why they would do this?
Also, if it is so normal why did even the WC lawyer try and correct him?
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.
What was the purpose of this? Why did they do it? Was it just for more detail as claimed or for some other reason? What about the telescopic scope? Remember, LHO allegedly used one to shoot JFK with.
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.
Why was the WC asking him to guess what someone else might or might not do? Or why they would do it? Again, why NOT call the person that actually did the retouching at LIFE? The only thing we have to rely on is in the twenty-six volumes. It is a letter from LIFE to Mr. Rankin of the WC. It can be found in Shaneyfelt Ex. 12.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pages/WH_Vol21_0239a.gif
…The prints you received were indeed the PRISTINE versions of the ones we used; they came from the same copy negative (I assume the Commission has the original negative). I thought you could compare them with the published cover and figure out how much retouching was done.
But here is the retouched print. You can take out the retouching (which we put in simply to make it more reproduceable because the original was not exactly the acme of photographic perfection) with a piece of cotton soaked in water or a finger moistened with saliva and have the original as we received it. I note, on close examination, that the retoucher was a little careless in making the rifle stock straight instead of a with a slight dip. There is a little more retouching around the bolt but a comparison with the original will convince you, I’m sure that nothing ESSENTIAL has been changed. (emphasis mine)
It was signed by Edward K. Thompson, Editor of LIFE magazine.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0239a.htm
Quote off
First of all, if the copy that LIFE received was “pristine” why did they need so much retouching? IF they were from a copy and NOT that good, why did the WC just NOT provide the ORIGINAL negative to LIFE to fix this issue? IF they couldn’t release it, then why NOT wait on the cover. Why was there a RUSH to have this photo published SEVEN MONTHS before the WC would reach their conclusion?
Secondly, who decided what was ESSENTIAL to the message of the photograph? Thompson said “nothing essential has been changed”, but what does this mean? We saw the shape of the rifle was changed, the scope was eliminated, and the body shadow between the legs was removed. What else possibly was messed with that we don’t know about? Remember, Shaneyfelt said, “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.”
Newsweek also would send a letter to Mr. Rankin about this photograph (which appeared in their March 2, 1964, issue) and what they did with it and this is in Shaneyfelt Ex. 16.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pages/WH_Vol21_0241a.gif
Since the question of retouching of this photograph in various publications has been raised as an issue by CRITICS of the investigation, I believe that your inquiry warrants a somewhat more detailed response than you have invited.
I am informed by our editors that the photograph that they received was so poor in quality that, as a matter of routine procedure, it was retouched to improve it for reproduction. We are unaware that it was published anywhere WITHOUT RETOUCHING OF SOME KIND.
In retouching at Newsweek, the technician inadvertently brushed out the telescopic sight which—as we have since had an occasion to note—is visible only so barely in the original photograph that it might well escape any but the closest attention. There was, of course, no intention to alter the substance of the photograph. (emphasis mine)
It was signed by Gibson McCabe—President of Newsweek.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0241a.htm
Quote off
Notice the jab at CRITICS in his letter! I guess if you are searching for the truth and question whether a photograph has been retouched or not you are critic! How could the average person be a “critic” of the investigation in June 1964 anyway? The final report did not come out for three more months and the WC was acting in a CLOSED DOOR FASHION! I just find it funny a president of leading magazine, that is out for the truth supposedly regarding the things they covered, thought searching for the truth made you a critic!
Next, notice the ADMISSION that the photograph was retouched by EVERYONE! Again, if the copy negative they all received was so poor in quality, why was there such a rush to publish it then? What was the urgency of putting this on the cover or in their publications in February and March of 1964?
Newsweek, like LIFE, also brushed out the scope on the rifle supposedly. (Perhaps there was NO scope to brush out?) Notice the comment that it was so hard to see that “only the closest attention” would have spotted it. Well, excuse me, but when you are retouching photographs and planning on PUBLISHING THEM IN YOUR MAGAZINE SHOULD NOT THE CLOSEST ATTENTION be paid? I would think so, but obviously NOT at Newsweek. Then we are just suppose to take his word for it that “no intention to alter the substance of the photograph” occurred.
Shaneyfelt Ex. 17 is a letter from the N.Y. Times to Mr. Rankin.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pages/WH_Vol21_0241b.gif
The New York Times did NOT retouch photograph in any way that would change the facts of the photograph—that is to say, it did NOT alter any essential feature of the photograph. I have our copy in front of us, and the ONLY retouching that has been done is to outline Lee Harvey Oswald’s head and right shoulder, to highlight the stock of the gun HE is holding, to put a CREASE in his trousers and tone DOWN somewhat the SHADOW CAST BY HIS FIGURE.
It was signed by Clifton Daniel—Asst. Managing Editor
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0241b.htm
Quote off
Again, we see the use of the term “essential feature” and again, we have to ask, who decides what is essential? Notice how they had no curiosity regarding the line above the person’s chin though. He flatly states it is LHO when it was never shown the photos were genuine, and certainly NOT by the time of the letter (June 1964). What was the need for a CREASE in his pants? Was that essential? Also, notice how they had to “tone down somewhat the shadow cast by his figure” as well! What was it about this shadow that caused so much concern? Could it be that it did NOT MATCH THE TIME SHOWN BY THE NOSE SHADOW? What other reason could there be to either eliminate it (LIFE) or tone it down somewhat (N.Y. Times)?
The fact retouching took place on this alleged photo of LHO holding the alleged murder weapons is troubling. The fact it took repeated letters by Mr. Rankin to get even these replies is even more troubling. What was the rush to publish these photos if the copy negatives they received were so poor? We should know that answer by now. They wanted to rush this picture before the American people to prepare them for the preconceived outcome that would come in September 1964.
Given the many questions and disturbing issues with these photos (BYP) there should NEVER have been a rush to publish them UNTIL they were worked out, but as we have seen that would mean they would NEVER have been published as nearly SIXTY YEARS LATER none of the questions or issue have been resolved from the WC’s point of view.
The comments by Shaneyfelt and the men of the some of the most important publishing assets of this country sink the conclusion of the WC as their issues were NEVER properly addressed and resolved. In fact, this outline shows us there was a RUSH TO JUDGMENT and the man they had chosen ahead of time would be found guilty NO matter what they found to the contrary.