Photographs 133-A and 133-B
Photographs 133-A and 133-B share virtually identical background and lighting, differing mainly in pose. Photograph 133-A displays more rifle characteristics than 133-B. Shaneyfelt rephotographed 133-A and took new comparison photos of the C2766 rifle in matching poses. While he found the pictured rifle similar to the C2766, including a shared stock notch, he could not positively identify the 133-A rifle as the C2766 beyond other rifles of the same configuration. Photograph 133-B shows less of the rifle but reveals that the pictured rifle had a homemade rope sling, whereas the C2766 found post-assassination had a homemade leather sling.
The negative
Shaneyfelt examined the negative (Commission Exhibit No. 749) and determined that 133-B had been printed from it, either directly or through an indistinguishable internegative. He believed 133-B was printed directly from the negative, since copy negatives typically show detectable loss of detail and imperfections. Any intermediate print would have been virtually indistinguishable from 133-B.
The camera
The Imperial camera (Commission Exhibit No. 750) was a relatively inexpensive, fixed-focus, single-shutter-speed, U.S.-made box camera. Shaneyfelt compared the camera to the negative by examining the microscopic irregularities along negative image margins—shadowgraphs of the camera’s film-plane aperture edge, illustrated in Commission Exhibit No. 751. Because manufacturing handwork and accumulated wear make each camera’s aperture edges distinctive (analogous to rifle barrel characteristics), Shaneyfelt could determine whether the negative had been produced by this specific camera.
CAPÍTULO II. With the assistance of Agent in Charge Sorrels of the
This chapter presents expert testimony by Shaneyfelt regarding photographic analysis of exhibits related to the assassination, followed by Appendix XI containing interrogation reports of Lee Harvey Oswald at the Dallas Police Department. The chapter covers Shaneyfelt’s analysis of photographs taken with Oswald’s Imperial Reflex camera (Commission Exhibit 750), the determination that certain photographs were not composites, and Capt. J.W. Fritz’s detailed report of his interrogations of Oswald between November 22-24, 1963.
Toolmark Identification Similarity
Shaneyfelt compared his photographic analysis methodology to toolmark identification, confirming the techniques were very similar. [A10-401]
Shadowgraph Camera Identification
Based on his examination of the shadowgraph visible on Commission Exhibit No. 749, Shaneyfelt determined that the negative had been taken with the Imperial camera. He also identified three edges of the shadowgraph of the film-plane aperture in one of the photographs of General Walker’s house, confirming it was also taken with Oswald’s Imperial Reflex camera. However, Shaneyfelt could not determine whether 133-A had been photographed with the Imperial camera because the negative was not found and the print did not show a shadowgraph area. [A10-402, A10-403]
133-A and 133-B Composite Analysis
During interrogations, Oswald had claimed 133-A was a composite, stating the face was his but the body was not. Shaneyfelt examined both 133-A and 133-B and concluded they were not composites, noting with very minor reservation that he could not entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite. He observed no inconsistencies in lighting, lens configuration, or other characteristics typical of composite photographs. [A10-404, A10-405]
Magnification Use in Photograph Examination
Shaneyfelt confirmed that he used the technique of magnification in his analysis, which would normally reveal characteristic marks where the edge of an added head had not been entirely retouched out in a composite photograph. He found no such characteristics in 133-A and 133-B. [A10-405]
Negative 749 Doctoring Assessment
Shaneyfelt’s examination of Commission Exhibit No. 749 showed absolutely no doctoring or composition. Since the negative was made in Oswald’s Imperial camera (Commission Exhibit 750), creating a composite of 133-B would have required putting two pictures together and rephotographing them in the Imperial camera without leaving a discernible trace. Shaneyfelt characterized this scenario as “beyond reasonable doubt” and “in the realm of the impossible.” [A10-406, A10-407, A10-408]
133-A Publication Retouching Analysis
Following the assassination, photographs similar to 133-A appeared in various newspapers and magazines with minor differences from 133-A and from each other. Shaneyfelt examined several reproductions and concluded that individual publishers had taken reproductions of 133-A and retouched them for clarifying purposes, accounting for the observed differences. His conclusion was confirmed when one publisher submitted its original retouched photograph, and other publishers either confirmed their retouching practices or failed to contradict his testimony. [A10-409, A10-410, A10-411, A10-412, A10-413]
The original text of this work is in the public domain. This page focuses on a guided summary article, reading notes, selected quotes, and visual learning materials for educational purposes.