The following is from Volume VI of the HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE
ON ASSASSINATIONS:
-------------------------------------------------------------



B. Photograph Authentication
 

1. THE OSWALD BACKYARD PHOTOGRAPHS*
                                                               
Introduction**
                                                        
     (347)  One of the most publicized questions to emerge in
relation to the Kennedy assassination involves the authenticity
of photographs showing Lee Harvey Oswald standing in his
backyard, with a holstered pistol strapped to his waist, holding
a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and two newspapers. These have become
known as the backyard photographs.   

     (348)  Oswald himself, when shown the pictures at Dallas
Police headquarters after his arrest, insisted they were fakes.
Through the years, many critics have argued the same thing. In
part the controversy was stimulated by a 1964 Life magazine cover
of a copy of one picture, retouched to enhance its quality.

     (349)  If the backyard photographs are valid, they are
highly incriminating of Oswald because they apparently link him
with the murder weapon.  If they are fakes, how they were
produced poses far-reaching questions in the area of conspiracy.
"Faked" backyard photographs would indicate a degree of
conspiratorial sophistication that would almost necessarily raise
the possibility that a highly organized group had conspired to
kill the President and make Oswald a "patsy." 


(1) History of the Backyard Photographs

     (350)  In the early afternoon of November 23, 1963, Dallas
detectives obtained a warrant to search the Paine residence in
Irving, Tex., where Marina Oswald had been living. (125) The
search concentrated primarily in the garage in which possessions
of the Oswalds were stored.  Among the belongings, Dallas Police
officials found a brown cardboard box containing personal papers
and photographs, including two snapshot negatives of Oswald
holding a rifle. (126) (Only one negative was made available to
the Warren Commission; the other has never been accounted for.)
(127)

     (351)  On the evening of November 23, 1963, Lee Harvey
Oswald was shown an enlargement of one of the pictures. (That.
photograph was later designated by the Warren Commission as CE
133-A.) According to officers present, Oswald denied that he had
ever seen the photograph and claimed that someone has
superimposed his head on another person's body.  Oswald was then
shown CE 133-B, which he also claimed was a trick
photograph.(128)  

     (352)  Marina Oswald was later questioned by the FBI about
photographs.   She said that she had taken them in the backyard
of the Oswald residence on Neeley Street in Dallas. (129) She
gave, however, different versions of when the pictures were
taken. She first told the FBI it was in late February or early
March 1963. (130) Her testimony to the Warren Commission
reflected the same thing. (131) In an FBI interview made after
her initial appearance before the Warren, however, she said that
the first time she saw the rifle was toward the end of March; she
recalled having taken the photographs 7 to 10 days thereafter,
in late March or early April.(132) 

     (353)  Other evidence available to The Warren Commission
supports her later version. A rifle and a revolver were shipped
to Oswald from two different mail order houses on March 20. (133) 
The left-wing newspapers Oswald is holding is dated March 11 and
March 24 and were mailed on March 7 and March 21, respectively,
both by second-class mail. According to postal authorities, both
newspapers would have arrived in Dallas by March 28. (134) In
addition, Marina claimed she remembered taking the photographs on
a Sunday, about 2 weeks before Oswald allegedly shot at Gen.
Edwin Walker on April 10. (135) From this information, the  
Commission deduced the likely date on which the photographs were
taken to be Sunday, March 31, 1963. (136)

    (354)  In connection with the Warren Commission's
investigation. Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, an FBI photographic expert,
performed an analysis on the two backyard prints designated CE
133-A and B, a negative, designated CE 749 (the original negative
of CE 133B), the Imperial Reflex duo lens camera (designated CE
750) that Marina Oswald testified she had used to take the
pictures, (137) and the alleged assassination weapon (designated
CE 139).  His analysis and conclusion as follows: 

     (355)   (1) The photographs CE 133-A and B were taken with
Oswald's Imperial Reflex Duo Lens camera. (138) Every camera has
unique regularities that are reflected on the margins of
negatives made by it. Shaneyfelt determined that the margin
irregularities of the original 133-B negative were identical to
those of a negative that he exposed in the camera.                
                 
     (356)  Although he could not document absolutely the origin
of CE 133-A because a negative was not available, Shaneyfelt
concluded that both prints were taken with the same camera since
they showed virtually identical background and lighting
conditions. (139)      

     (357)  (2) The backyard photographs CE 133-A and B are
authentic.  Shaneyfelt examined them under magnification and
found no characteristics of compositing or retouching. (140)
Initial public controversy regarding the authenticity of the
backyard arose after copies of CE 133-A, which appeared to differ
in detail from the original as well as from each other,
particularly with respect to the configuration of the rifle, were
published in Life, Newsweek and other news publications.(141) He
testified that the apparent variations in the magazine versions
were caused by retouching, a common practice the reproduction of
photographs for publication. (142)

     (358)   (3) The rifle in the backyard photographs is
probably the rifle found in the Texas School Book Depository.
Shaneyfelt photographed the rifle, attempting to duplicate the
lighting and rifle's position CE 133-A, and found the
configurations matched those of the rifle in the backyard
photograph. Although he found a notch in the stock of the rifle
that appeared faintly on the rifle in the backyard photographs,
he did not find enough peculiarities to state categorically  that
the rifles were identical. (143)

     (359)  Despite the Warren Commission's efforts to show that
the backyard photographs were genuine, critics have persisted in
doubting their authenticity. In general, the critics base their
allegations of fakery on their observations of shadow
inconsistencies, an indication a grafting line between the mouth
and chin, inconsistent head and body proportions, or a disparate
square-shaped chin 

     (360)  This position has received support from scientists
who had not previously been associated with Warren Commission
critics. For example, Malcolm Thompson, a British forensic
photography expert, questioned in public the authenticity of the
photographs in a 1978 British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) television
documentary. (145) At request of the BBC, he had examined copies
of the backyard photographs and concluded they were fakes. 
Similarly, a photographic analyst with the Canadian Department of
Defense reached the conclusion that these photographs were
composites.(146)
                                                        
(2)Additional photographic evidence recovered by the House Select
Committee on Assassinations
     

     (361)  Marina Oswald, in addition to giving two different
versions as to where the backyard pictures were taken gave
different versions of the number of pictures taken. At first, she
testified she had taken one picture; (147) later she said it was
two. (148) In addition, Marguerite Oswald testified that soon
after the assassination she and Marina destroyed yet another
picture in which Oswald was shown holding the rifle over his head
with both hands. (149)

     (362) The committee obtained an 8 X 10 print of an
additional view of Oswald holding the rifle in a pose different
from CE 133-A or B.  This photograph, a generation print, was
given to the committee on December 30, 1976 by Mrs. Geneva Dees
of Paris, Tex.  According to Mrs. Dees, it had been acquired by
her former husband, Roscoe White, now deceased, while employed
with the Dallas Police at the time of the assassination. (150)
The panel designated this recently discovered photograph as 133-C
(Dees). 


     (363) The committee obtained another first generation print
133-A on April 1, 1977 from the window of George de
Mohrenschildt. (151) In the manuscript of his book, which he was
writing at the time of his death in 1977, he stated that he and
his wife had found the photograph in February 1967 among personal
belongings they had stored in Dallas before departing for Haiti
in May ]963. (152) 

     (364)  Two additional first generation prints, one of 133-A
and one of 133-C, where obtained from former Dallas Police
Detective Richard S. Stovall on April 14, 1978. (153) Stovall was
among the police officers who discovered the backyard photographs
during the search of the Paine premises. (154)


                              (b) Issue

     (365) Is there any evidence of fakery in the photographs of
Lee Harvey Oswald that show him standing in a backyard holding a
rifle in one hand and two left-wing newspapers in the other?
     
(c) Materials and Procedures
                                                        
     (366)  The Photographic Evidence Panel examined Warren
Commission exhibits CE 133-A and 133-B, the two backyard pictures
seized from the Oswald residence by Dallas Police in 1963; CE
749, the original negative to CE 133-B, and CE 134, an
enlargement of CE 133-A.  In addition to these Warren Commission
exhibits, the Panel analyzed the four photographs recently
discovered by the committee: 

     (367)  (1) A photograph designated as 133A-de Mohrenschildt
recovered from the estate of the late George de Mohrenschildt;
(155)

     (368)  (2) A photograph designated as 133C-Dees, obtained
from the Dees' widow; (156)

     (369)  (3) Photographs designated as 133A-Stovall and
133C-Stovall, obtained from Stovell. (157) (See fig. IV-15, JFK
exhibit F-178, for a display of all of these photographic
materials except CE-134, which is shown in fig. IV-22.)

     (370)  These items were selected because of the Panel's
policy of working just with first generation prints and original
negatives. (158) Only these types of materials contain the most
reliable photographic information; subsequent generation
materials tend to lose detail in highlight and shadow areas,
suffer deterioration of tonal quality, and are prone to include
new defects that may impair the accurate representation of the
photographic image. CE 133-A, CE 133-B, 133A-de Mohrenschildt,
133C-Dees, 133C-Stovall and CE 134 were identified by the Panel
as first generation prints. CE 749, the original negative to CE
133-B, was the only negative recovered from the possession of the
Dallas Police Department; consequently, it was the only original
negative available to the Panel for analysis. There is no
official record explaining why the Dallas Police Department
failed to give the Warren Commission the other original negative.
(159)

     (371)  In addition to studying the various backyard picture
materials, the panel examined CE 750, which was alleged to be Lee
Harvey Oswald's camera (J60) to determine whether it was used to
take the backyard photographs. Next, the negatives and
photographs were both visually inspected and compared with known
photographs of Oswald. The panel's visual inspection included the
use of magnifiers and microscopes. As an aid in this process, a
series of enlargements at varying exposures and contrast ranges
was made of CE 133-A and 133-B, thereby producing prints which
ranged from very light to very dark. (See figs. IV-16 and IV-17,
JFK exhibits F-192 and F-193.) The detail in the darkest parts of
the pictures could be most clearly seen in the lighter prints.
The details in the lightest areas could be most clearly seen in
the darker prints. In this way, the panel had the best
opportunity of detecting any evidence of falsification anywhere
in the pictures.

     (372)  In a further effort to locate unnatural edges or
lines, as well as differences in grain structure and contrast
variations, the panel used digital image processing. The negative
of CE 133-B was placed on a microdensity scanner so that light
passing through the film could be measured. Such measurements
were made on microscopic square areas that were positioned in a
square-by-square pattern, but the actual squares were smaller
than the silver grains on the negative. The measuring instrument
determined how light or dark each microscopic square area was and
expressed this as a number in a scale of 1,024 grades of density.
As the film was scanned, the number for each square area was
stored in the memory of a computer. The computer could
subsequently recall the numbers, and cause a beam of light to
expose a tiny spot on a piece of unexposed photographic film.
Each small area was exposed to a magnitude corresponding to the
relative tightness or darkness of the area on the original
negative. When the exposed film was developed, it provided an
enhanced copy of the original image.

     (373)  The computer was also programmed to manipulate the
data stored in its memory. It could produce a copy different from
the original in some specified way: It could vary the contrasts;
it could enlarge the image; or it could produce a more
complicated derivation. It could be programmed to search for
edges between dark and light areas and to print a line on the
copy at the place corresponding to the edge on the original.    

     (374)  The backyard pictures were also visually inspected
with stereoscopic techniques that permitted the prints to be
viewed in three dimensions.  This was possible. because the
camera's movement exposures 133-B and 133-A resulted in two
views, only a short distance apart, of a single scene. When these
two pictures are viewed together in a stereo viewer, they give
rise to a three-dimensional image. (161)

     (375)  This analytic technique is useful in the detection of
fakery because photographs of prints (i.e., a photographic copy
of a photograph), when viewed in stereo, will not project a
three-dimensional image unless made from different viewpoints
along one axis.  Further, any retouching of an original
photograph of a scene can be detected because when two
photographs of that scene are viewed in stereo, the retouched
item will appear to be either in front of, or behind the plane in
which it should be lying. It is virtually impossible to retouch
one or both images of a stereo pair with enough skill to escape
detection when viewed stereoscopically.

     (376)  Finally, in addition to these methods of visual
inspection, the materials were studied photogrammetrically.
"Photogrammetry is the science of ascertaining the positions and
dimensions of objects from measurements of photographs of these
objects."  (162) In the Oswald backyard pictures, photogrammetry
was given particular emphasis in studying critical shadow areas.
     
(d) Conclusion
                                                        
     (377)  The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the
backyard picture materials.
                                                   
                              (e) Analysis
                                                        
     (1) Production and development of prints


     (378)  The photographic prints examined by the panel were
not of uniform size. These variations reflected differences in
how each had been produced and developed. CE 133-A and 133-B were
considered to be drugstore or photofinisher prints because they
appeared to have been produced on the type of commercial
photoprinting machine used by photo finishers for camera stores,
drugstores and mass-produced prints.

     (379)  The photographs show a slight variation in the
horizontal and vertical dimensions of the prints and borders that
were caused by artifacts of masking position. On the back of each
is the small graphite mark characteristic of automatic printing
machines. It indicates to an electric eye scanner where the long
continuous roll of prints should be cut into individual
snapshots. (See figs. IV-18, IV-19, JFK exhibits F-179 and
F-182.) As most drugstore prints, these were apparently cropped
slightly for aesthetic purposes by placing a white border around
their periphery. Finally, the panel noted that CE 749, the
negative to CE 133-B, contained small emulsion tears, which
indicated that it had been abused in processing, as well as water
spots indicative of improper washing or drying.

     (380)  CE 133-A and 133-B were determined to be first
generation because of the presence of very fine lines and marks
that were occasioned either by scratches on the film, which were
caused by the camera, or by torn or broken emulsion from the
negative that occurred during development. Marks so fine and
sharp would not have appeared with such definition on a second
generation print.

     (381)  On review of 133A-deMohrenschildt (see figs. IV-2O
and IV-21, JFK exhibits F-382 (front) and F-383 (reverse)), the
panel noted that it had been probably made in a high quality
enlarger with a high quality lens. Nevertheless the print has
become yellowed with the passage of time indicating that it was
not adequately fixed or washed during the development process.

     (382)  The uncropped black border around the edge of this
print indicates that it was projected in an enlarger with it
negative carrier that was larger than the actual full size
negative of CE 133-A. This type of equipment might be found in a
graphic arts shop or photo printing shop that uses many sizes of
negatives. It is also possible that the paper easel might not
have had the capability of masking a print this size. As a
result, the entire negative area is printed and the unexposed
border area outside the full camera aperture has been recorded as
black on the print. Because people normally like to have white
borders on their pictures, this is an unusual way of presenting a
photograph. The sharpness of the markings (from the film
scratches) within this black border, as well as the presence of
fine scratches and emulsion tears, indicates that this is a first
generation print.

     (383)  The 133A-Stovall print is approximately 5 by 8
inches. (See fig. IV-22, JFK exhibit F-185.)  This is not a
standard size for photographic paper. The person who made the
print probably took a standard size sheet of 8- by 10-inch paper
and cut it in half. Across the bottom border of the print is a
black line. The lower right area of the white border above the
black line bears a black circle. The black border at the bottom
was caused by light spilling over the bottom border of the easel
mark because the mask was not wide enough to cover it.
Furthermore, since the mask contained a small rivet with a hole
through it, the paper extending under this rivet hole allowed the
light from the enlarger to print the image through the rivet
hole. These markings are actually sharper than the photographic
image. The Panel established that this print was also a first
generation print, again because of well-defined markings and
emulsion tears.

     (384)  Since the original negative to CE 133-A was square
shaped (see fig. IV-2O, JFK exhibit F-382), and because
133A-Stovall is rectangular (see fig. IV-22. JFK exhibit No.
F-185), it is apparent that the Stovall picture has been cropped
with a standard white border for aesthetic reasons.

     (385)  The 133C-Stovall and 133C-Dees prints (see fig.
IV-15) also appear to have been cropped for aesthetic reasons in
a manner similar to 133A-Stovall. Moreover, because these two
prints had the same well-defined emulsion tears and scratches on
them as the other first generation prints, they are likewise
considered to be first generation. Both are enlargements from the
original negative.

     (386)  Finally, CE 134 is an 8- by 10-inch enlargement of
the CE 133-A negative. (See fig. IV-23) It apparently was
reproduced by the Dallas Police Department by enlargement from
the original negative with an easel set that accommodated 8- by
10-inch enlarging paper. The back of the photograph contains an
impression from a rubber stamp identifying the Dallas Police
Department. (See fig. IV-24) The emulsion scratches and tears are
again evidence that this is a first generation print.

(2)  The Imperial Reflex Camera 

     (387)  Marina Oswald testified to the Warren Commission that
CE 750, an Imperial Reflex camera (see fig. IV-25) was used to
take the backyard pictures. (163) In order both to test the
credibility of her testimony and to establish the conditions
under which fakery might have occurred, the panel conducted a
series of tests to determine whether this camera had, in fact,
been used to take the backyard pictures. (164) The tests sought
to establish whether any of the unique identifying marks of the
camera could be found on the backyard picture materials.

     (388)  Most cameras, particularly inexpensive ones which
have been manufactured by injection molding of plastic, have
certain imperfections in them such as bumps, notches, nicks,
scratches, edge irregularities, et cetera. These imperfections
frequently are located on the film plane aperture against which
the film lies when it is exposed. As a result of the contact
between the film plane aperture and the film, some recorded on
the border of the film's image area. These imperfections are
known as frame edge markings. They are not of concern to camera
manufacturers because most customers who use such cameras will
have photofinisher prints made which have white borders that crop
off the frame edge marking irregularities. 

     (389)  Such markings, however, will remain on the negative
and any uncropped prints. Because these markings on inexpensive
cameras tend to be distributed in a random pattern unique to each
camera, they serve as identifiers for determining whether a
particular negative or uncropped photograph was originally
exposed in any particular camera.

     (390) Another type of camera signature may occur in
inexpensive cameras when the film is dragged across the edge of
the plastic as it is moved from the supply chamber to the film
plane aperture and then to the take-up chamber. This process
often causes fine scratches on the emulsion side of the film that
may then appear on the actual photographic image. These scratches
may coincide with the particular pattern of the plastic molding
of the camera. They can serve as unique marks for camera
identification.

     (391)  In order to determine the pattern of these camera
signatures the case of CE 750, Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera,
test photographs were made with it and then intentionally
underexposed in development to show the frame edge markings
better. (No special development method was necessary to bring out
the camera scratch mark pattern.)  (See fig. IV-26, JFK exhibit
No. F-190). Each time the film was run through the camera, the
camera signature created by the frame edge markings and scratch
marks was found to be the same. (165)

     (392)  The next step was to verify that this frame edge mark
pattern and the scratch marks were unique to CE 750. This was
done by comparing the test pictures with photographs that had
been exposed in two duplicate Imperial Reflex cameras obtained
from the Eastman Kodak House in Rochester, N.Y. In each case, the
camera signatures were markedly different. (166) The comparison
thus confirmed that CE-750 had unique frame edge markings and
scratch marks. (See fig. IV-27, JFK exhibit F-191.) (167)

     (393)  Because only the 133-B negative (CE-749) and the
uncropped 133--A de Mohrenschildt print contained a full image
area showing the frame edge markings, only these were compared
for frame edge markings with the test photograph. In the case of
the 133-B negative, 11 unique identifying frame edge marks were
found which corresponded with the test photography. (See fig.
IV-28, JFK exhibit F-188.) These identifiers were also present in
the 133-A de Mohrenschildt print, although the panel notes that
in this case, a light box and magnifier were necessary to detect
all of the marks. (See fig. IV-29, JFK exhibit F-397.) (168)

     (394)  These results were confirmed by the panel's
scratch-mark analysis. Here, all the backyard picture materials
could be reviewed because the scratch marks that were the subject
of the analysis had not been cropped out by any of the prints'
white borders. The analysis clearly indicated that the scratch
marks were located in precisely the same location in each
photograph. (See figs. IV-26, 28, and 29.) (169) 

     (395)  This analysis established that the Oswald backyard
pictures had been exposed in Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera.
     
                    3. ALLEGATIONS OF FAKERY
                                                                 
       
     (a) Unnatural lines in the vicinity of Oswald's chin
                                                        
     (396)  It has been alleged that there is a line that runs
directly across Oswald's chin and is evidence of compositing.  No
unnatural line indicative of fakery could be discerned by the
panel on either the original negative or first-generation prints
when these materials were visually inspected using magnifying and
microscopic equipment, varying density exposures, and digital
image processing. (171)
                 
     (397)  As noted earlier, photographic images such as the
backyard pictures are composed of very small irregular shaped
grains of silver gelatin layer. On a given photograph, a
uniformly exposed area has a generally uniform distribution of
such grains. In contrast, on composited photographs, the grain
distribution may be noticeably different: When the panel
microscopically examined the area above and below the horizontal
chin cleft in the backyard pictures, no difference in grain
structure could be found. (172) (See fig. B-16, JFK exhibit F-
197.)

     (398) The 133-B negative (CE 749) was digitally processed at
the Aerospace Corp. and the University of California Image
Processing Institute using several different image-processing
techniques. This process confirmed that the grain distribution
was uniform. (173) (See fig. IV-31, JFK exhibit 197.)  Under very
carefully adjusted display conditions, the scanned image of the
Oswald backyard negative did exhibit irregular, very fine lines
in the chin area. The lines appeared, however, only with the
Aerospace gradient-enhancement process, where the technique was
applied at a much higher resolution (i.e., the image area scanned
was magnified since only a small portion of the picture was being
subjected to the computations).

     (399) Although the cause of these lines has not been
definitely established, there is no evidence to indicate that
they are the result of an attempt to fake the photograph.  This
is because similar although less pronounced, lines were found
using the same digital enhancement technique on a known authentic
photographic negative. Therefore, those lines may have been a
product of the enhancement process.

     (400) Supporting evidence for this conclusion is that the
fine lines were not observed in photo-optical photochemical
enhancements or in phase contrast microscopic inspection of the
chin area. In addition, the lines are disconnected; they do not
cross the entire chin and are extremely fine, roughly equal in
width to the size of the grain clumps in the emulsion.          

     (401) Three other possible causes for the lines are
suggested:

     (402)  (1) They could be due to the presence of very fine
scratches on the glass plate used to support the film while it
was being scanned;

     (403)  (2) They could have been introduced during the film
drying process. Particulate and dissolved material in the film
wash water can leave a so-called water stain on film. As the
water evaporates, the particulate and dissolved material is
deposited on the emulsion, usually in thin, irregularly shaped
lines. The probability of the lines being caused by very faint
water stains is heightened by the observation of very noticeable
stains in the neck and ear area, as discussed below. These marks
are found in the work of photographers who pay inadequate
attention to the washing and drying steps in the processing of
the film;

     (404) (3) Changes in emulsion temperature during processing
can) cause silver grains in the emulsion to clump together in
fine linear effect known as reticulation.

     (405) While subsequent generation prints of the backyard
pictures appear to show a line running across Oswald's chin,
(174) this phenomenon is not surprising because copy prints often
have higher contrasts than originals. If an object or an original
photographer of the object has a rather diffuse band that is dark
at the center but becomes progressively lighter at the edges, a
photographic or printed ink copy very often will show that band
as a distinct line with sharp edges. In generating a copy
photograph, the photographic or printing process may not be able
to depict the entire tone range of the original object or
photograph. In that case, a range of lighter tones will all
appear a single light tone and a range of darker tones will all
appear as one dark tone. It is in this way that a broad smooth
tone scale becomes a sharp transition from dark to light. This
apparently happened in copies of the Oswald photographs, causing
the shadow across the chin to appear to be a sharp line.
Accordingly, no probative value can be attributed to such
materials.     

     (406)  The Panel did note a very fine line on an enlargement
of CE 133-A. It ran from the edge of Oswald's left ear into the
chin area, and continued downward and around to form an
irregularly shaped, closed ring.  If this were a photographic
image of a line  where parts of a picture had been pasted
together, the image of the line would be composed of photographic
silver grains. Here, however, the line was actually finer that
the silver grains and was continuous rather than beaded and
broken as it would have been had it been composed of silver
grains.   Experienced photographic technicians recognize this
type line as the edge of a water spot.  (See fig. IV-32, JFK 
exhibit F-196. )   

     (407)  Where the negative was developed, fixed, and washed,
a spot of water was left on the film surface. As it dried, it
left a mineral residue and/or microscopic distortion of the
gelatin surface surrounding the area where the drop had been
located. Because very similar configurations were seen on more
than one of the 133-A prints, the defect must have been on the
original negative. Images of similar water spots were found on
the image of the shirt at the left shoulder and on the image of
the stock of the rifle. Similar water spots were observed as well
as on the negative of CE 133-B (CE 749) on prints made from that
negative, and on 133-C.

     (408)  Moreover, on comparing the backyard prints with known
photographs of Oswald, the Panel observed that he quite clearly
had a natural line running across his chin. (See fig. IV-33, JFK
exhibit No. F-194.) It appears in the photographs as an
indentation.

     (409)  The chin area of the backyard pictures has also
generated controversy because of the allegation that the chin
appears rather flat across the bottom, whereas in other
photographs it is more pointed, or at least rounded, with a
vertical cleft at the bottom. It has been asserted that the chin
in the backyard prints actually belongs to another man.  

     (410)   A profile photograph taken by the Dallas Police
Department, shows that the lower half of Oswald's chin had a
roughly cylindrical protrusion with a horizontal axis. (See fig.
IV-33, JFK exhibit, No. F-194.) When the chin was lighted by
direct sunlight coming from nearly overhead, the protrusion cast
a shadow over the bottom part of the chin. The upper edge of the
shadow was a nearly straight horizontal line.  The bottom of his
chin, like his eyes and neck, is in such deep shadow that it is
not visible.  Thus, the shape of Oswald's chin and the type and
direction of illumination are responsible for the relatively flat
appearance of his chin.
     

(b) Unnatural and inconsistent shadows

     (411)  An argument has been advanced that some of the
shadows cast by Oswald and other objects in the backyard prints
contain no detail and consequently must have been painted on a
montage.(175) In addition, the directional consistency of the
shadows both in terms of the objects casting them and with
respect to each other has been challenged. (176)

     (412)  The first of these claims was found to be false
simply by studying the prints of CE 133-A and CE 133-B that had
been made at varying exposures to facilitate examination for
detail. The prints of normal and greater than normal lightness
revealed great detail in the shadow areas. (See figs. IV-16, IV-
17, JFK exhibit Nos. F-192-193.) Grass, a small branch, what
appear to be stones, clods or parts of leaves, and a newspaper
can be seen. Blades of grass are silhouetted against the edge of
the newspaper.

     (413)  This aspect of the photographs appears normal. The
shadows are illuminated by light reflected from the white or
light-colored picket fence, and wall in the background. For this
reason, the shadows on the ground are not as dark as the shadows
over the eyes and throat that did not receive such illumination.
The detail within the shadows and the variations in density
between them preclude the possibility that they were painted onto
a montage. (177)

     (414)  The consistency of the shadows was also evaluated by
application of the vanishing point principle. The concept of
"vanishing point" perspective is widely known with respect to
artists and applies to photography as well. (178) This concept
simply means that parallel lines in object space are depicted as
converging lines on the image which will eventually meet at a
point.  Because the Sun's distance from Earth is so great that it
may be considered infinitely distant, it follows that, in any
sunlit scene, lines from objects to their shadows are parallel.
When these parallel lines are pictured the corresponding lines on
the picture converge at a point known as the vanishing point.  A
picture of parallel railroad tracks provides a good illustration;
the tracks are seen to converge to a point at the horizon.

     (415)  In the case of the railroad tracks, the vanishing
point is in the picture. This may not always occur. If the lines
are perpendicular to the camera axis (the line from the center of
the lens to the center of the film), the images of the lines will
not appear to converge at a point, on the picture. The vanishing
point may then be considered to be at infinity. In other cases,
where the parallel lines are not perpendicular to the camera
axis, the vanishing point is either in the picture or some finite
distance outside it.

     (416)  When this is the case, the directional consistency of
shadows may be tested by drawing lines from images of objects to
the corresponding points on the images of their shadows, and then
extending these lines (beyond the actual picture if necessary) to
see if they are meet at one point. If the lines do meet at one
point, they are parallel and therefore consistent. If they do not
met at one point, they are not parallel and consequently are not
consistent.

     (417)  When this analysis was applied to the backyard prints
by drawing lines from a part of the stairway, the butt of
Oswald's pistol, the muzzle of the rifle, Oswald's nose, et
cetera, to the corresponding points on the shadows cast by these
objects, the lines all met at the vanishing point. (See figs.
IV-34 and IV-35, JFK exhibits Nos. F-387 and F-388.) Accordingly,
the shadows were determined to he directionally consistent.  A
vanishing point analysis on 133C(Stovall) also yielded consistent
results.

     (418)  While the vanishing point analysis settles this
issue, comparisons between shadows depicted in different backyard
pictures cannot be validly made unless the illumination, precise
geometry of the head and the exact location of the camera are
considered. It is for this reason that the allegation of fakery,
based on the observation that a shadow has not moved between
pictures despite movement of the object casting it, is
fundamentally misconceived.  The argument fails to account for
the compensating effect of movement by the camera.(179) This
principle is illustrated in the RIT Technical Report, pars.
470-74 infra.

     (419)  Finally, the shadows in these pictures were also
analyzed to determine the sequence in which the photographs were
taken. A visit to the Neeley Street site of the backyard
photographs established that a person walking up the steps would
be walking almost straight east. (180) Given the view shown in
the backyard photographs, it is possible to estimate that the
camera was aimed about 70(deg) east of north. The shadows in the
photographs indicate that the Sun was behind and to the right of
the camera. Since this would place the Sun in the southwestern
sky, it was afternoon, and the Sun was going down.

     (420)  In the photographs, three horizontal linear shadows
may be seen crossing the post in the foreground of the pictures
and continuing along the ground behind the subject. These may
have been shadows of power cables or some similar object. There
is a knot in the post between the lower two shadows that may be
used as a visual reference point. The shadows are lowest relative
to the knot on 133-C, highest on CE 133-A, and in an intermediate
position on CE 133-B. The Sun position would cause the shadows in
the backyard pictures to move upward on the post with the passage
of time. Therefore, since the shadows were moving upward, 133-C
was taken first, followed by CE 133-B, and then CE 133-A. (See
figs. IV-18, IV-2O, and IV-36.) (The possibility of additional
intervening photographs cannot be discounted.)

     (421)  The photographic technique improved appreciably
during the sequence. For 133-C, the camera was not held level and
the subject was not centered. The camera was rotated slightly as
the shutter release was pressed. This caused the detail to be
fairly sharp in the vicinity of the bush shown at the right,
corresponding to the axis of rotation, while there is rotational
blur elsewhere, such as in the area of the steps. In CE 133-B,
the camera was held level and steady, but the subject's feet were
not in the field of view. For CE 133-A, the camera was held
reasonably level and steady, and the subject was well centered.

(c)Evidence of retouching

    (422)  Each of the backyard pictures, as well as the only
original negative, was examined microscopically for evidence of
enhancing. No such evidence could be detected.  Particular
attention was given to the area to Oswald's left in CE 133-B,
where it has been alleged that a retoucher painted on a montage
but carelessly allowed the color material to spread onto the
front of a nearby vertical post, thereby giving the appearance of
an indentation on the post that does not appear in either of the
other two backyard pictures. (181) 

     (423)  Close examination of the original print revealed that
the apparent indentation is a shadow, most likely of a leaf or
leaves.  The straight edge of the post is still visible in this
shaded area. This straight edge was detected and indicated by a
computer programmed to seek such edges. (See fig. IV-37, JFK
exhibit F-198.) 
                                                        
     (424)  The other two pictures, CE 133-A and 133-C, show that
the post casts a shadow on the white surface behind it. The
shadow is wide enough to fill the image area between Oswald's
neck and post. Consequently, since the darker area to the left of
the post is the shadow of the post on a white surface, a shadow
falling on the white post itself would be similar in tone to the
background and could be mistaken as part of the background rather
than as a shadow on the post.

     (425)  Finally, careful inspection detects a crooked linear
image of what appears to be a thin branch or a wire clothesline
in this picture. The image of this line runs continuously through
the area in question between Oswald's neck and the post. It is
unlikely that a retoucher who would faithfully preserve detail as
fine as this wire would fail to follow the straight edge on the
post. (183)

(d) Oswald's identical heads and inconsistent body proportions

     (426)  Allegations have been made that Oswald's head appears
to absolutely identical in each of the backyard pictures examined
by the Warren Commission and that this is evidence of a single
head being used for the compositing of CE 133-A and B. (184)
Further support for this argument has been advanced by Warren
Commission critics who have maintained that in each of the
pictures Oswald's head is the same size, even though the length
of his body varies considerably. (185) 

     (427) There is no support for the statement that Oswald's
head is identical in each of the backyard pictures.  If anything,
the photographs showed a marked variation in facial expression. 
For example, in CE 133-A Oswald is smiling, whereas in CE 133-B
he appears to be frowning. (See figs. IV-18 and IV-2O.)

     (428) The panel was aware that various techniques involving
the use of transparency overlays have been used in an effort to
demonstrate that the three different heads are really one. (186)
When soft-edged such as pictures of the spherical human head are
the subject of analysis, the absence of a sharp demarcation for
comparison precludes such methods from serving as an accurate
basis for making comparisons. Even so, when the transparency
overlay method of analysis was undertaken by the committee's
contractors, the differences in the shape and size of Oswald's
head became readily apparent. (187)

     (429)  The argument that there is evidence of fakery because
Oswald's head size is the same in each of these pictures,
although his body size changes, was found to be erroneous for
several reasons.  First, any measurements of Oswald must take
into consideration variations attributable to his degree of
tilt.(188) Second, even when the tilt factor is ignored, Oswald's
head length measures differently in each of the photographs.
Finally, there is nothing unusual about a series of photographs
in which head length appears to remain the same even though the
subject's body length seems to vary. Because of its rigid
structure, the head when photographed (even with a marked change
of expression) is subject to considerably less variation in
length than the rest of the body, which tends to be affected more
by variations, in posture. (See fig. IV-38)                       
   
     (430)  When the panel reviewed previous studies analyzing
the relative proportions of Oswald's body length to the length of
the rifle depicted in the pictures (189) it became apparent that
these analyses had also failed to consider variations in posture
and effect the apparent length of a photographed image. Moreover,
variations in Oswald's posture as depicted in these pictures make
such an analysis meaningless.

(e) The identical backgrounds
     
     (431)  The allegation has been made that the backgrounds in
these pictures are identical and that three differently posed
subjects had been superimposed on copies of one background
picture. (190) The proponent of this theory, however, had never
measured the distance between any relevant reference points in
these pictures to determine whether there had been camera
movement between the taking of each photograph. (191) Had this
been attempted, the analysis would have revealed both horizontal
and vertical movement between pictures.

     (432)  The panel determined that there had been horizontal
camera movement. It measured the difference in alinement between
pictures of particular foreground and background objects. For
example, the prominent post in the foreground of each picture,
has a picket fence on both sides of it. The term "a" was
designated as the distance from the left edge of the image of the
post to the left edge of the left-hand picket at the end of the
fence, "b" as the distance from the right edge the image of the
post to the right edge of the image of the righthand picket. If
the camera had moved between exposures, the ratio of "b" to "a"
should differ between viewpoints in different pictures.

     (433)  This ratio was measured at three different heights on
corresponding places on CE 133-A and B, and in all three
instances a measurable difference was found. A similar technique
was used with similar results to determine that there had also
been vertical camera movement between pictures.

     (434)  In addition, the panel observed, as noted above that
the backgrounds in these pictures contained such different shadow
patterns that the time sequence in which these photographs were
taken could be determined. Shadows of leaves on the wall behind
Oswald also differ noticeably in these pictures.

     (435)  Finally, because of the movement of the camera
between exposures, these photographs could be viewed
three-dimensionally in stereo pairs. When this is done, the post
properly appears to stand out in front of the fence while the
fence in front of the buildings is positioned further back. Many
of the dark areas that look like leaves on the bush on the right
(and consequently make the foliage appear to be unseasonably
thick) are found to be shadows of these leaves on the wall behind
the bush, the bush and its leaves stand out from the wall,
whereas the shadows lie flat against it. If a single photograph
of the backyard had been taken and several copies of it then
made, the photographs when viewed together stereoscopically would
have exhibited no difference in alinement between foreground and
background objects. It would be obvious that it had been a flat
photograph that had been rephotographed, rather than the real,
three-dimensional backyard.

     (436)  The finding that the backgrounds of these two
photographs can be viewed stereoscopically has an important
bearing on the question of authenticity. The falsification of
stereo pairs would require extremely precise positioning of all
points in one image relative to the points in the other. An error
in the relative positions would be readily detected because, when
the pair is viewed together, erroneously placed points would
appear to lie either in front of or behind the plane in which
they should be lying. It is unlikely that a sophisticated
conspirator would attempt to falsify images by producing a stereo
pair, since one picture would obviously be sufficient, easier to
produce, and less susceptible to detection.

4. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

                                                                 
       
     (437)  Beyond the evidence produced by the use of the
various photographic analyses, which did not detect any evidence
of fakery in the backyard pictures, several practical
considerations reinforce these conclusions. For example, the FBI
established that the newspapers that appear in the photographs
did not reach Oswald until March 27, or 28, 1963, and the
committee determined that by April 5, 1963, Oswald had already
autographed the back of one of the pictures (133A-DeM). (192)
Aside from the obvious question of whether Oswald would place his
signature on a fake picture, for the photograph to have been
faked would have required access, within just a 10-day period, to
Oswald's backyard, his camera, rifle (knowing that this would be
the assassination weapon), and newspapers. 

     (438)  While such access without Oswalds knowledge would
theoretically have been possible, it is regarded as unlikely.
Moreover, a fundamental question is whether a sophisticated
conspirator would expose himself to unnecessary risks of
detection by making three fake photographs, when just one would
suffice. Using stereoscopic analysis, any inconsistent evidence
of fakery would be detected, as literally floating in the image
space of the photograph. 

     (439)  Another important consideration mitigating against
fakery is the obvious improvement in quality as the sequence of
photographs progressed--133C, CE 133-B and CE 133-A. Quite
clearly a learning process was taking place, as the photographer 
determined among other things how the subject would best be
centered in the field of view. Finally, the presence of graphite
marks on CE 133-A and CE 133-B strongly suggests that the prints
were routinely developed by a drugstore or camera store
photofinisher's laboratory. It is unlikely that sophisticated
conspirator would have given the end product doctoring efforts to
a drugstore for printing. Malcolm Thomson, the British forensic
photography expert who publicly questioned the authenticity of
the backyard picture, was shown a preliminary summary of the
panel's report and asked to comment. He was also offered an
opportunity to appear before the committee to express his views.
After studying the reports, Thomson deferred to the panel's
conclusions that the photographs revealed no evidence of fakery. 
He noted the thoroughness of the panel's investigation and
emphasized that his earlier comments were based upon examination
of copies of the photographs rather than the original material.
Thomson did, however, reserve his opinion that the chin in the
backyard pictures was suspiciously different from the chin that
he had observed in the Dallas arrest photographs of Oswald.  He
also remained skeptical as to the ability of a computer to detect
a photocopied composite photograph.  
     The photographic analyst with the Canadian Department of
Defense who had stated that there was evidence of fakery in these
photographs was also contacted by the committee. He indicated
that he had performed no scientific tests on the photographs and
had spent less than an hour examining the "very poor copies" that
were submitted to him. (194)


ADDENDUM A
                              
MEASUREMENTS OF HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL PARALLAX

     (440)  Both the horizontal and vertical parallax between the
two Oswald backyard photographs CE 133-A and ]33-B were measured.
This was done by measuring the difference in alignment between
particular objects in the foreground and background. The post,
prominent in the foreground of each picture, has a picket fence
behind it and extending to both sides. The post and fence
provided clearly delineated and easily identifiable corresponding
points for measurement of horizontal movement (i.e., horizontal
parallax) of the camera between exposures. A horizontal part of
the fence and the lower edge of the screen of a screen door in
the background provided points for measurement of the vertical
parallax.

     (441)  Horizontal parallax was measured at three different
heights on the picket fence: the lower level was just above the
top edge of the lower horizontal member of the gate; the middle
level was in line with the lower edge of the middle horizontal
member of the gate; the upper level was in line with the lower
edge of the top horizontal member of the gate. (The four pickets
and the three horizontal members give the appearance of a gate
because they are evenly spaced, but actually they stand at an
angle to the vertical member seen alongside the post in the
foreground.) At the lower and middle levels, the distance "a"
from the left edge of the foreground post to the left edge of the
picket to the left of it was measured, and the distance "b" from
the right edge of the foreground post to the right edge of the
picket to the right of it was measured. At the upper level,
because the right edge of the right-hand picket falls into shadow
and is not clearly delineated, the distance between the right
edge of the foreground post and the right edge of the second
picket, which appears to be the first picket of the gate, was
measured. The results of the measurements and computations are as
follows:
     
                    [Table deleted]
          
     (442)  In all cases, more of the background is shown to the
right and less to the left on CE 133-B as compared to CE 133-A.
Since the shadow analysis indicated that CE 133-B was taken
before CE 133-A, the parallax indicates that the camera was moved
slightly to the left between these two exposures. The ratios
shown at the far right of the table of values differ for two
reasons. The sharpness of the edges to which measurements were
made was quite poor, so that the difference between the
measurements at the lower and middle levels is probably largely
experimental error. The measurement of the upper level, as noted,
was actually a measurement that used a different reference point
and, therefore, would not be expected to result in the same
ratio.

     (443)  Vertical parallax was calculated by measuring the
vertical distance from the center of the dark horizontal object,
which looks like it might be a gate bolt or latch, to the bottom
edge of the screen of the screen door in the background. To
establish scale, that is to take into account differences in
magnification, these measurements were related to the distance
from the left edge of one picket to the left edge of the next,
measured in a horizontal direction. This scaling distance was
measured on the two center pickets of the four that appear to
constitute the gate at the level of the lower edge of the top
horizontal member. The results are as follows:

                            [deleted]

     (444)  Since less background appeared above the gate bolt on
133A than on 133B, the camera was moved slightly downward between
these two exposures. Less certainty can be attached to this
determination than to the determination of horizontal parallax
for two reasons. Only one, rather than three determinations, was
made. Second, in the horizontal case the determination was made
more sensitive to parallax because as the camera moved, the
picket to the right became narrower, while at the same time the
picket to the left became wider.  Thus, in the ratio b/a, the
numerator was diminishing as the denominator grew. This double
effect, was not present in the determination of vertical
parallax. Nevertheless, there is additional evidence of vertical
parallax. Between the first and second pickets from the left 
gate, just below the bottom edge of the upper horizontal member,
a small black rectangle appears. It appears more elongated in the
vertical direction on CE 133-A, as one would expect if the camera
were moved down between exposures, exposing more of the dark area
in the background.


                              ADDENDUM B
                              
REPORT TO THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS 
U.S. CONGRESS--HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
THE OSWALD BACKYARD PHOTOGRAPHS
                                                        
(By Dr. Leslie Stroebel, Mr. Andrew Davidhazy, Dr. Ronald
Francis)
     
The Oswald Backyard Photographs
INTRODUCTION

                                 
     (445)  This report deals with the authenticity of the
photographs of Oswald in a backyard, including prints of three
different views and a negative of one of these views. Twenty-two
specific questions concerning the authenticity of these
photographs were presented to the undersigned by the photographic
panel. Most of the questions are related to claims made by
various persons in the mass media that fakery was involved in the
production of the photographs.

     (446)  The questions are numbered and a response, with a
description of the test procedures used and our conclusions,
follows each question. Illustrations are included with some of
the responses. The first number in each illustration caption is
the same as the number of the corresponding question. Three
illustrations are also included as part of this introduction.
Figure RIT 0-1 serves to identify the three different views of
Oswald and the only negative that has been located. Figures RIT
0-2 and 0-3 are enlargements of two of the views which the reader
may find useful for reference purposes. A glossary is included as
an appendix for readers who are unfamiliar with any of the
photographic terms used in this report.

OSWALD BACKYARD PHOTOGRAPHS-QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES
     
     (447) 1. Was the negative of Oswald exposed in the Oswald
camera? (The negative is identified by the Archives number
CE-749, and it corresponds with the print identified by the
number CE-133B. The Oswald camera is an Imperial Reflex duo lens
camera that uses 620 film.)

     (448)  When negatives that were exposed in the Oswald camera
by the undersigned were compared with the negative of Oswald,
similarities in the edge markings from irregularities in the film
aperture and scratch patterns indicated that the negative of
Oswald was exposed in the Oswald camera.  In addition, variations
in sharpness from the center to the edges, and pincushion
distortion were similar on the original and comparison negatives.

     (449)  2. Do the edge markings on the FBI print (made from a
negative exposed in the Oswald camera by the FBI) agree with the
edge markings on the negative of Oswald (CE-749)?

     (450)  We had intended to make a quantitative comparison of
the edge markings on the various photographs, as suggested by a
panel member, by aligning parts of edge markings, measuring the
displacement at fixed intervals and calculating the standard
deviation.  Careful examination of a roll of film we exposed in
the Oswald camera revealed that while the distinctive marks
appeared consistently on each frame of film, the straightness of
the lines varied considerably-apparently due to slight buckling
of the film.  Instead, we made prints that compare pairs of edges
on all four sides of the picture frame.

     (451)  By combining positive and negative images, it was
possible to show the comparison as the two edges of a single
black line.  Figure RIT 2.1 shows a comparison between a print
made by the FBI from Archives negative CE-749 (outside edge) and
a print made from the same negative at RIT (inside edge).  In
order to show all four edges it is necessary to make the inner
image slightly smaller than the outer image, resulting in a
slight displacement of markings near the ends of each edge.  The
distinctive markings on the inner and outer edges of the black
line agree closely as would be expected if the two prints were
both made from the same negative.

     (452)  There are two obvious discrepancies that we consider
to be insignificant. (1) When one edge of the two images is
aligned, there is a slight lack of parallelism on the other three
edges.  Since the two prints were made with two different
enlargers, any deviation from exact parallelism of the negative
and the easel on either enlarger, a not uncommon defect in
enlargers, would produce this effect. (2) There is an obvious
difference in the vertical to horizontal proportions of the two
images.  The dimensional stability of photographic paper during
processing and drying is different in the direction of the paper
grain as opposed to across the paper grain.  The difference in
proportions is consistent with expectations if the paper grain
were oriented vertically on one print and horizontally on the
other.

     (453) Figure RIT 2-2 shows a comparison between a print of
an unidentified man on a roof made from a negative exposed in the
Oswald Archives negative CE-749 by the FBI.  The similarities of
the markings indicate that both were made with the Oswald camera.
Figure RIT 2-3 shows a comparison between film exposed in the
Oswald camera at RIT (outside edge) and the Archives negative of
Oswald, CE-749. Again, the distinctive markings are in close
agreement indicating both negatives were made in the same camera.

     (454)  3. Are the edge markings produced by the Oswald
camera unique or are they similar to markings produced by other
samples of the same brand of camera?

     (455)  When two other samples of Imperial Reflex duo lens
cameras, obtained from the International Museum of Photography at
the George Eastman House (IMP-GEH), were compared with the Oswald
camera, it was found that all of the bodies were produced by
injection molding of plastic. This produced three circular
indentations on each side of the film aperture that tended to
distort the otherwise essentially straight edge. The details of
the distortions in these areas, however, were distinctively
different on the three cameras. These differences in-shape can be
seen by examining the images through a low power (5-10X)
magnifier. The most distinctive differences however, are the two
projections, one on each side, near the bottom of the Oswald
camera image which are missing on the two IMP-GEH cameras. Figure
RIT 3-1 shows a comparison between one of IMP-GEH cameras (inside
edge) and a negative exposed in the Oswald camera at RIT.

     (456)  4. Does the image sharpness at the center and edges
of the negative of Oswald (CE-749) appear to be consistent with
that other negatives made with the Oswald camera?

     (457)  Yes. Photographs taken with the Oswald camera by the
undersigned revealed strong curvature of field, which accounts
for much of the falloff in sharpness toward the edges.
Photographs made with the two/MP-GEH Imperial Reflex duo lens
cameras also revealed strong curvature of field. These cameras
have no focusing adjustment and no aperture adjustment to control
depth of field. With curvature of field the camera focuses on
nearer objects at the edges of the picture than in the center. At
the distance Oswald was standing from the camera, he appears
sharper than objects near the edges at approximately the same
distance. If the camera had been moved somewhat closer to Oswald,
however, curvature of field would cause him to appear less sharp
than objects at the edges which were at the same distance. Thus,
the relative sharpness at the center and edges of photographs
made with these cameras varies with the object distance. In
figure RIT 4-1, the curved plane of sharp focus in object space
is behind the wall in the center causing unsharpness in this
area, is at the wall in a circular area midway between the center
and the edges producing a sharp image, and is in front of the
wall at the edges again causing unsharpness.

     (458)  5. Could the scratches on the negative of Oswald have
been produced by the Oswald camera? 

     (459)  Film exposed in the Oswald camera by the undersigned
revealed scratches similar to those on the original negative of
Oswald. Some scratches did not extend the full length of the
film, but when 8 x 8 inch prints made from the original negative
and one of the above comparison negatives were carefully aligned,
four prominent scratches were in the same locations on both
prints--at 36, 45, 52, and 112 mm from the left edge of the
picture area (fig. RIT 5-1). Scratches were detected on both the
emulsion side and the base side of the negative of Oswald
(CE-749), but the scratch lines that are evident on the prints
correspond to those on the emulsion side of the negative. The
fact that four prominent scratches were in the same locations on
a print made from the negative of Oswald and a print made from a
negative we exposed in the Oswald camera completely satisfied us
that the scratches on the negative of Oswald were produced by the
Oswald camera.

     (460)  6. Do other samples of the same brand of camera
produce similar or identical scratches?

     (461)  Obvious scratches were produced by one of the two
imperial Reflex duo lens cameras obtained from IMP-GEH but not by
the other (figs. RIT 6-1 A and B). The camera that produced the
obvious scratches had a badly warped back that put excessive
pressure on the film and made it difficult to advance the film.
The scratch pattern produced by this camera was not at all
similar to that produced by the Oswald camera. We conclude that
film scratching with this brand of camera is not the result of a
manufacturing defect, in which case similar scratch patterns
could occur with different cameras, but rather is the result of
changes that may occur on an individual basis as the cameras are
used over an extended period. It seems that the plastic used in
the camera body and back can soften and be deformed when
subjected to elevated temperatures, as was evident. on one of the
two IMP-GEH cameras, placing excessive pressure on the film as it
is advanced in the camera.

     (462)  7. Can the scratches on the negative of Oswald be
enhanced?

     (463)  There are procedures for enhancing scratches. Since
it was felt that a positive identification had been made in the
response to question 5 above, these procedures were not employed.
Also, we noticed that the fine scratches on the film we exposed
in the Oswald camera tended to be less continuous than the four
obvious scratches we measured and therefore they would be less
useful for identification purposes.


     (464)  8. Are any scratches continuous on the body, head,
and background on the negative of Oswald? 

     (465)  Apparently there was concern about the scratches not
only for the purpose of determining if the negative of Oswald had
been exposed in the Oswald camera (discussed in 5 and 6 above)
but also to provide information concerning the possibility that a
composite image had been made--such as a head or figure from one
photograph and the remaining parts from another. For this second
purpose, a continuous scratch on the head, body, and background
would limit the options by which a composite could have been
made.
     If, for example, a scratch were detected running from the
top edge to the bottom edge of a print but stopping abruptly at
the head, there would be reason to suspect that a head had been
transplanted from another photograph. Or, if such lines were
detected on the negative of Oswald but they were evident only as
light or dark streaks with no indication of physical damage to
the film surface, there would be reason to suspect that the
negative was a copy negative rather than an original, and that
some fakery was involved. No evidence of such scratch marks was
detected. In the present case, since it could be seen that the
scratches were actually on the surface of the negative of Oswald,
they simply confirm these marks were caused by the camera and, as
such, that the negative was indeed exposed the Oswald camera.
None of these scratch marks were suggestive of compositing.
Similarly, the scratch marks on the prints were caused by the
effect of the camera on these negatives, and thus are not
evidence of fakery but rather serve to confirm that Oswald's
camera was used to take these pictures.

     (466)  9. Are there any differences in the grain pattern in
the areas of the body. head, and background on the negative of
Oswald 

     (467)  No inconsistencies could be detected between the
areas mentioned with examination of the original negative through
a 30X magnifier, on normal contrast enlarged prints, or on high
contrast enlarged transparencies (figs. RIT 9-1 A and B).

     (468)  10. Are the backgrounds identical in the three
different views of Oswald in the backyard (CE-133A, CE-133B, and
CE-133C)?

     (469)  The backgrounds are not identical on the three
photographs, but the differences are those to be expected as a
result of a change in the position or the angle of the camera
with respect to the scene. We could not detect anything that
would suggest the background itself (as distinct from the
photographs of the background) had been changed in any way--as by
the addition, removal, or alteration of any of the parts. Also,
we could not detect any evidence of fakery either in the
background areas of the photographs or in the figures. (Also see
question 15 below. )

     (470)  11. Are the nose shadows compatible with the other
shadows the scene? 

     (471)  The positions of the shadows under the nose,
eyebrows, and chin all appear to be consistent with the other
shadows in the scene. In addition, the sharpness of the edges of
the shadows and the contrast of the shadows with the surrounding
areas appear to be consistent.

     (472)  We were subsequently asked to respond to the
statement in the Caption on page 191 of JFK: The Case for
Conspiracy by F. Peter Model and Robert 3. Groden, which compared
CE 133-A and 133-B. "In the bottom photo CE 133-B, Oswald's head
is cocked slightly to his left, yet the shadow directly under his
nose (see top closeup of CE 133-A) moves--not in relation to the
light source but to the angle of his head.

     (473)  It is true that if the tilt of the head were the only
change made between the two photographs, the nose shadow would
point more toward the left of Oswald's mouth (on the viewer's
right) in CE 133-B where the head is tilted.  However, turning
the head from left to right (as distinct from tilting it) also
alters the placement of the nose shadow. The authors
understandably did not take this factor into account because
Oswald's head seems to be facing directly toward the camera on
both photographs. In actuality, however, the position of Oswald
and/or the camera has changed as evidenced by the change in the
position of the post behind Oswald. If we assume that the camera
was moved a short distance to the viewer's left, for CE 133-B,
Oswald would have to turn his head to his right in order to be
facing the camera and this would move the shadow back toward the
original position shown in CE 133-A. Also, moving the camera to
the left or moving Oswald to the viewer's right would produce the
observed change in the relative positions of the post and
Oswald's head.

     (474)  Four photographs were made of a manikin head to
illustrate the explanation given above:
     Figure RIT 11-1. The nose shadow falls straight under the
nose with the head in the vertical position.
     
     Figure RIT 11-2. Tilting the head to the viewers right by
placing a pencil under the opposite side causes the nose shadow
to move noticeably toward the left side of the manikin's mouth.
     Figure RIT 11-3. Rotating the head to its right returns the
shadow to the original position, but the manikin is no longer
facing the camera.
     Figure RIT 11-4. Moving the camera to the left produces a
full front view of the head with the shadow in the original
position even though the head is tilted. Also, the background has
moved to the left in comparison with the head, as in the
photographs of Oswald.


     (475)  12. Is there any evidence of a line in the chin and
neck area that would suggest the picture is a composite?  

     (476)  We found no evidence of a line suggesting a composite
had been made in our examination of the only original negative
available (CE-749) (without magnification and at 30X
magnification) and of normal-contrast prints and high-contrast
prints at either low or high magnification. We made a copy of the
reproduction of a portrait of Oswald from page 192. "JFK: The
Case for Conspiracy," by F. Model and R. Groden in which the
authors claim the chin has been transplanted (fig. RIT 12-1). For
comparison purposes we made enlargements at about the same scale
from copy negatives of prints CE-133A, CE-133B, and CE-133C (fig.
RIT 12-2). The enlargement of the head from CE-133C is less sharp
than the other enlargements because when the original 8 x 10 inch
print was made, the enlarger was not focused accurately, and the
original negative has not been located.

     (477)  All three of these prints have light shadows on both
sides of the dark shadow under the lower lip, but print CE-133A
also has some irregular dark spots in the area where the line
appears in the book illustration. Such spots could be caused by
any of various natural factors, the most probable of which are
shadows caused by the slight but obvious change in expression in
the mouth area, random clumpings of silver grains which are
evident at this magnification throughout the pictures and a
slight change in the angle of the head with respect to the Sun.
     
     (478)  In any event, the dark spots on our print do not
conform to smooth line which would be the effect with the
conventional procedures used in making composite images. A line
can also be seen on the forehead of this photograph (CE--133A)
which does not appear in CE-133B nor in the book illustration.
The picture that appears in the book was made with high-contrast
film or paper, an appropriate procedure for some purposes but it
produces a misleading effect here in that it exaggerates some
details and eliminates others. Observe that the laugh lines
running down and out from the sides of the nose, which are
plainly visible on our normal contrast print, have disappeared in
the book illustration. We are convinced that there is no fakery
associated with the spots on the chin.

     (479) 13. Are there any pictorial inconsistencies that
suggest faking?

     (480) Careful examination of the photographs with respect to
lighting, perspective, sharpness, distortion, grain pattern.
density, and contrast revealed no evidence of fakery. Examples of
evidence of fakery concerning the lighting would be shadows in
the wrong position in relation to the position of the Sun and the
object casting the shadow, shadows that do not correspond in
shape to that expected when shadows are projected onto another
surface, shadows that do not appear as sharp as expected with
direct sunlight, shadows that do not appear dark as expected with
the approximately 1:8 lighting ratio between shadow and highlight
sides of objects obtained in sunlight on a clear day, and shadows
that do not respond to nearby reflecting surfaces. No such
discrepancies are seen in any of the three photographs of Oswald.
     The darkness, shape, sharpness, and placement of the shadows
appear to be correct.

     (481) The effect of light being reflected from the white
surfaces on the left can be seen in the shadow on that side of
Oswald's neck, and the shadow of Oswald on the ground moves
appropriately as the changes his position between each of the
photographs. Tilting the camera slightly downward for view
CE-133A where Oswald is holding the paper under his chin produces
the expected higher placement the figure in the picture and the
divergence of the vertical subject lines towards the top of the
picture. 

     (482) Composite photographs made using a pasteup or montage
technique can usually be defected as such unless the component
parts are made under identical conditions and with great skill.
Clues that commonly reveal fakery are mismatches of the density,
contrast, sharpness, graininess,  perspective, and lighting, and
imperfect blending of the edges between the parts. No such clues
can be found in these photographs. Furthermore, there is no
disruption of the grain pattern across the boundary between the
head and the body or between the head and the background so that
any composite photograph involving the head would require using
large original negatives and prints and then copying a composite
image with the Oswald camera. This possibility is discussed in
the response to question 22, but nothing in the negative or the
three prints of Oswald was detected that appears inconsistent or
Suggests fakery.

     (483)  Additional questions related to statements by Mr.
Malcolm Thompson in a BBC film and a manuscript identified as
"Panorama -- Kennedy, Project. number 5348/5506" that is included
in the appendix:
               
     (484)  14. Does the apparent bulge in the left edge of the
post to the right of Oswald's head appear to be due to retouching
or other alteration of the image in photograph number CE 133B?

     (485)  What could be perceived as an indentation in the post
in CE-133B is believed by the undersigned to be an illusion
resulting from the location of a shadow of a branch or leaf along
the left edge of the post. It follows that since the darker area
to the left of the post is a shadow of the post on a white
surface, a shadow falling on the white post would be similar in
tone and could be seen as part of the background rather that as a
shadow on the post. The shadows falling along the right edge of
the post create, a slight illusion that the right edge is not
entirely straight either even though the background to the right
of the post is lighter in tone.


     (486)  Careful examination of this area on enlarged prints
reveals a narrow object, that could be either wire or a bush
branch, running from the edge of the building on the right, in
front of the post, across the area in question, and continuing
through the shadow area between the neck and the post (fig. RIT
14-1). Anyone skillful enough to retouch the area between the
neck and the post, as claimed by Mr. Thompson, and include the
just-detectable wire or branch, would have no difficulty in
producing a straight line on the post.

     (487)  5. Are the backgrounds and shadows identical on any
of the three different views (CE 133A, CE 133B, and CE -133C),
thereby suggesting that different figures have been superimposed
on different prints of a single background photograph?

     (488)  The speculation is either that someone started with a
photograph of a backyard with no figure and added the three
figures from other photographs, or that Oswald's head was added
to three photographs, of someone else standing in the backyard.
The backgrounds are not identical, thereby ruling out the
possibility that figures were added to three prints of a single
photograph of the backyard. The differences include changes in
the convergence of vertical subject lines (the posts, the boards
in the fence, and the building on the right) with changes of
camera tilt, changes in the area of the background included in
the three views, and slight changes in the positions of shadows
of some branches and leaves.

     (489)  16. Is there evidence that part of the background
could have been moved photographically to fill a gap created by
adding a figure in a different pose to a background photograph?

     (490)  No such evidence can be detected. Since the figure
moved to the viewer's left between views CE-133B and CE-133A, and
moved closer to the fence between views CE-133A and CE-133C,
major gaps would have been created around the entire periphery of
the figures if the figures had been added as suggested. Even if
it is assumed that photographs of Oswald's head have been added
to photographs of someone else's body, the necessary retouching
around the edges would be difficult to conceal from detection
with high magnification.

     (491)  17. Is there evidence that the shadows have been
touched in? No. The shadows appear normal in shape, location,
sharpness and contrast. It would be especially difficult to
maintain realistic detail in the shadows on the ground if the
shadows were added. It is noted that the shadow moves an
appropriate distance to the left as Oswald moves to the viewer's
left from view CE-133B to view CE-133A, and when he moves closer
to the fence in view CE-133C the shadow moves up onto the fence
as expected. (The relative distances between Oswald and the fence
can be determined by noting the position of his feet with respect
to the shadows of the three overhead wires.)


     (492)  It is true that highly skilled artists can and have
made paintings that appear photographic. There is no evidence,
however, that this was done in this ease. To add shadows having
detail to a photograph requires not only darkening the
appropriate area, but also changing the detail within the shadow
so that it appears to be illuminated by diffuse illumination from
the sky and surroundings rather than by the Sun. Therefore, the
sharpness and position of the detailed shadows within the larger
shadow area must be changed in sharpness and position. For
example, there is a ridge at the top of the white wall behind
Oswald that casts a shadow on the wall beneath it. Where the Sun
hits the ridge the shadow is sharp and contrasty. Where the ridge
is in the shadow of the post, the shadow has a less sharp edge
and the contrast with the adjacent area is lower. A similar
situation exists where Oswald's shadow falls on what appears to
be a paper on the ground near the fence. The soft shadows on the
paper within the head shadow on view CE-133B appear as would be
appropriate if illuminated with diffuse light from the fence and
sky.

     (493)  18. Is the size or position of the shadow of the gun
in Oswald's right hand (view CE-133B) inconsistent with the
position of the gun?

     (494)  If the gun were held vertically with the butt on the
hip, we would expect the shadow to be oriented in the same
direction as the shadows of the legs. However, the barrel of the
gun is tilted toward the left side of the picture and also toward
the camera. Both of these changes have the effect of rotating the
shadow of the gun in a counter-clockwise direction. The positions
of the gun and the shadow are therefore compatible.

     (495)  19. Is there evidence that, Oswald's left arm and
hand have been stuck on to another photograph in a
physiologically inconsistent manner (view CE-133B)?

     (496)  It is possible to experience an optical illusion
whereby the small wedge of the bare upper arm that is visible
between the bottom edge of the dark sleeve and the lower arm
appears to be part of a horizontal limb attached to the rib cage.
This is an illusion not unlike the illusion in view CE 133A that
the post is sitting on or growing out of Oswald's head. It is
just as easy to see the small wedge of the bare upper arm as
being part of a vertical limb that is mostly enclosed in the
shirt sleeve. Moreover, it is difficult to understand the purpose
of making a composite image in this manner.

     (497)  20. Is the area between Oswald's neck and the post to
the viewer's right (view CE-133B) too wide to be filled by a
shadow of the post, thereby indicating retouching?

     (498)  The ratio of the shadow width to the post width was
calculated for view CE-133A where both are clearly visible, and
was found to be 1:1.07. Applying the same ratio to an enlarged
print of view CE-133B, where the post is 24 millimeters wide, the
calculated width of the partly concealed shadow is 22.4
millimeters. The measured distance between the neck and the post
is 22 millimeters if the apparent indentation is included, and
only 20 millimeters to the position of a straight left post edge.
Therefore, the distance between the neck and the post is not too
wide to be filled by a shadow of the post.

     (499) 21. Are the heads on any two of the three different
views (CE-133A, CE-133B, and CE 133C) from a single original
photograph ?

     (500)  One method of detecting' differences between two
photographs is to place them in a stereoscope so that the left
eye sees one photograph and the right eye sees the other. If the
two photographs are identical, the two images will fuse and the
viewer will perceive a single image. If the photographs are not
identical, the areas of disparity will not fuse and the viewer
will perceive two separate images. When the three views of Oswald
were viewed two at a time in a stereoscope, it became apparent
that no two of the images were identical.

     (501)  The procedure used in the CBC film to demonstrate
that the heads on two of the photographs of Oswald were identical
was to superimpose enlarged monochrome color transparencies
having different colors. The viewer was thereby led to believe
that the transparencies registered exactly. In an effort to
duplicate this demonstration, we made closeup copy negatives of
the head areas in the three prints identified as CE-133A,
CE-133B, and CE-133C. These negatives were enlarged to 8 x 10
inches to produce diapositive images on normal-contrast film and
also on high-contrast film. Green and magenta positive images
were then produced by contact printing.

     (502)  Superimposing the normal-contrast color images from
the pairs of photographs as was done in the CBC film revealed
that while this appears to be an elegant test, it is not very
discriminating. The registration between the two images could be
altered considerably before any color fringing became apparent in
the facial features. An explanation for this registration
tolerance is that the facial details that appear sharp on a small
print are revealed to have unsharp edges when enlarged to this
size due to the granular composition of photographic image. A
close examination of the superimposed images revealed a
difference in the grain structure, but color differences were
obvious at a normal viewing distance only in the large areas of
disparity in the background and under the head (fig. RIT 21-1).

     (503)  Two additional procedures were then used in an effort
to verify and then provide evidence that the heads on the three
photographs are not identical. For one, positive and negative
high-contrast film images were sandwiched together and contact
printed onto paper. When the positive and negative images are
from the same original photograph (CE-133B) a fine-line effect is
produced as shown in figure RIT 21-2. When the positive image
from CE-133B is combined with the negative image from CE-133A,
the areas of disparity are represented either as broader black
areas or as broken lines. This print is shown in figure RIT 21-3.
Similar comparisons of CE-133A and CE-133C, and of CE-133B and
CE-133C are shown in figure RIT A and B.

     (504)  It should be mentioned here that the head sizes were
not identical on the original prints from the Archives. An
adjustment was made when the copy negatives were enlarged to make
the 8 x 10 inch diapositives. The widths of the images were
matched at the temples and cheekbones, but the
vertical-horizontal proportions are noticeably different. We
attribute this change in the shape of Oswald's head to the
downward tilt of the camera for photograph CE-133A, that placed
the head farther off the lens axis. This effect is explained in
greater detail below.
     
     (505)  In addition to the change in the outline shape of the
head, the disparity between the images in the area of the nose,
mouth, and shadow under the mouth is quite obvious. We attribute
these differences to a slight change in expression around the
mouth and a slightly different angle of the head with respect to
the Sun and the camera. The chin shadow appears in the shape of
an inverted "U" in CE-133B and an  upright "U" in CE-133A.

     (506)  For the third and final procedure demonstrating that,
the heads on the three photographs are not identical, negative
and magenta transparencies were made from the positive and
negative high-contrast film images. When the green image from
CE-133B is properly registered (i.e., superimposed) on the
magenta image from CE 133A and the two are opposite in
negative-positive polarity (i.e., one is a negative image and the
other is a positive image), the areas of disparity become evident
as clear areas and as areas of a darker color produced by the
overlap of green and magenta. We believe the differences are
dramatic and clearly indicate that the two heads did not come
from a single original photograph. This pair of images is shown
in figure RIT 21-5. Similar results were obtained when
high-contrast, color images from view CE-133C and CE-133B (fig.
RIT 21-6). An additional pair of green and magenta
transparencies, both made from view CE-133B, is included to show
the appearance of identical images in figure RIT 21-7.

     (507)  Additionally, photographs were made of a manikin head
with an Imperial Deluxe Reflex duo lens camera similar to the
Oswald camera, placing the image of the head in various positions
from the center of the negative to the edges. The purpose of this
was to illustrate the effect such variations in placement have on
the shape of the image of the head in order to explain the 
differences in head shapes in photographs CE-133A, CE-133B, and,
CE-133C, observed when the high-contrast color transparencies
were superimposed. A black and white contact print of three
negatives (fig. RIT 21-8) shows the  manikin head in the center
of the photograph, near the top (tilting the camera down), and
near the top left corner (tilting the camera down and aiming it,
to the right). Placing the image of the head off the lens axis
causes it to be elongated in a direction radiating away from the
center of the photograph. Thus, the head at the top of the
photograph is stretched vertically and the head in the corner is
stretched diagonally. 
     This change in shape can be seen on the contact print but
the heads were also enlarged on high-contrast film and contact
color transparencies were made so that direct comparisons could
be made by superposing green and magenta pairs of the three
images. (fig. RIT 21-9).

     (508)  This change in shape is known as the wide-angle
effect and it occurs with all conventional camera lenses
including normal, wideangle, and telephoto, but it is most
obvious with short focal length wide-angle lenses. In addition,
pincushion distortion, which is evident in the curved
reproduction of straight subject lines, and the altered
perspective, which is evident in the convergence of vertical
subject lines when the camera is tilted, slightly affect the
shape of the head. (The differences in sharpness of the images of
the manikin head when placed in the center and near the edges of
the photograph is further evidence of curvature of field observed
in photographs made with the Oswald camera.) Thus, the difference
in height to width proportions of the heads in CE-133A, CE-133B,
and CE-133C can be explained in terms of these effects since the
tilt of the camera changed between the photographs, thereby
placing the head in different positions. Of the three effects
mentioned, the wide-angle effect, has the greatest influence on
the shape of the head. Since the wide-angle effect applies only
to three-dimensional objects, it would not alter the shape of the 
two-dimensional head on a photographic poster or print, which has
been suggested as a way off faking the photographs of Oswald.
Thus, the presence of this effect in the backyard picture is
another item of evidence negating the likelihood of fakery.

     (509)  22. Could the negative of Oswald be a copy of a
composite print rather than an original photograph?

     (510)  The undersigned copied a photographic print with the
Oswald camera, using a +4 diopter supplementary lens over the
camera lens, to demonstrate that it is possible to make a copy
negative that has characteristics of an original negative
including edge markings, scratch patterns, variations in center
to edge sharpness, pincushion distortion, and consistent grain
patterns (fig. RIT 22-1 A and B). For this type of fakery to be
successful, it would be necessary to use a large format camera
with a good quality lens for the original photographs to avoid
introducing graininess, scratches, unsharpness, or distortion at
this stage. Also, any alterations would have to be made on large
photographs so that retouching or discrepancies could be
concealed. Furthermore, the Oswald camera would have to be
available to the person making the fake photographs and it would
be necessary to calculate a combination of supplementary lens
focal length and original print size to obtain an in-focus image
of the desired size with the fixed-focus camera.

     (511)  Clues that might uncover this type of fakery would
include strong pincushion distortion caused by adding a
supplementary lens, loss of graduation in highlight areas and
loss of detail in shadow areas which typically occurs when copies
are made, and possible detection of imperfect retouching or other
alterations. Pincushion distortion was much more evident on the
copy photograph made with the Oswald camera than on the original
negative of Oswald or on other photographs made with the Oswald
camera without the supplementary lens. Since there is no
wide-angle effect when two-dimensional photographs are copied, to
avoid detection of fakery, appropriate variations in the shape of
Oswald's head would have to be incorporated in the original
photographs. In summary, it is possible to make copy photographs
that are acceptable as originals. Nevertheless, because such a
process poses many technical problems, any one of which if not
solved would lead to detection under close examination of the
photographs, we do not believe such a procedure was used to
produce the three, backyard photographs of Oswald.