BSey ee eine et saaleicenipadimes-anbeaiot . : Fn es annNewuo ng Nag mw ee Sifentne ie SP mi Bos TON PUBLIC nalnF nab ant a Hh | L IBRARY - Pn FnTa Raith tae Men aggo nehne Fine Aine hoes Saitr na =. . citl out fil ame!lat maa es Ta tthe aia oe om elit lh a Na a we tele Lntedetiess agMan Rin Tan Tosti Tom BOSTON PUBLIC, "2 LIBRARY Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2025 with funding from Boston Public Library https://archive.org/details/investigationofa68unit 5 i Dhak Ant uy! any y wet Nae Cty ¥ ony th eee hi ay i. i ip) } ‘ A t aah Bh aie i 1 iy this i} Pe ey in i Al ele Le PNA A iM ry Mlk ‘ 6 Lt Rane t i ALI, POUR CO), ; ig Ma] Mane t ee, r VA ’ y oie i ut ee : ‘ ") aM ' US 1 1 ba ; 7 aM Lhe BA! 7 a whirl ih ii Mi fn uve ret py ty ears a) 4 Re) TH Py AAA AY e ee Tie we MALY , Ne i efi Thiel rh "y \ - nf q s ba il I Ely, 1' ! f i ; ar ee .) ’ ; : eh ; 7 I i . j ‘ 1 j I J re. ie 7. ] ad es i rf ae) \ i i bite | ve 4) | Bist ibe 23.) i ge Bh. he ‘ i ‘f rere | ye | hiMt bias t Gg ane a uy i eve sei vO ae ~INVESTIGATION OF THE ASSASSINATION ‘ OF Een JOHN F. KENNEDY ee APPENDIX TO HEARINGS | BEFORE THE peel COMMITTEE ON ASSASSIN ATIONS: OF THE US. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION | i VOLUME VI . PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE A MARCH 1979 | |Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Assassinations LATE 5125 DOES NUS UiiscU AUTHOR Inv. of the Assass'n of Pres. TITLE als eRe Vol. 6 DATE DUE BORROWER'S NAME E U Gul AT WOES W INVESTIGATION OF THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY Ea La"W wa Lae a os3. “Ee ue te APPEN DIX TO HEARINGS BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION VOLUME VI PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE MARCH 1979 Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Assassinations ae U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 42-370 O WASHINGTON : 1979 a For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock No. 052-070—04977—4 SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS LOUIS STOKES, Ohio, Chairman RICHARDSON PREYER, North Carolina SAMUEL L. DEVINE, Ohio WALTER E. FAUNTROY, STEWART B. McKINNEY, Connecticut District of Columbia CHARLES THOME Nebraska Se BRATHWAITE BURKE, HAROLD S. SAWYER, Michigan alifornia CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut HAROLD E. FORD, Tennessee FLOYD J. FITHIAN, Indiana ROBERT W. EDGAR, Pennsylvania Subcommittee on the Subcommittee on the Assassination of Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. ; John F. Kennedy WALTER E. FAUNTROY, Chairman RICHARDSON PREYER, Chairman HAROLD E. FURD YVONNE BRATHWAITE BURKE FLOYD J. FITHIAN CHRISTOPHER J. DODD ROBERT W. EDGAR CHARLES THONE STEWART B. McKINNEY HAROLD S. SAWYER LOUIS STOKES, ex officio LOUIS STOKES. ex officio SAMUEL L. DEVINE, ex officio SAMUEL L. DEVINE, ex officio STAFF G. RoBERT BLAKEY, Chief Counsel and Staff Director Gary T. CORNWELL, Deputy Chief Counsel (It) CONTENTS Paragraph et SWeCOUUGWONS et 2c ac t cere eerste Nae ceeded (1) A. Selection of the photographic experts... __._.___._..-__-._-__-_- (8) B. Image enhancement technology... -...__...2..0.-.2-L--_-_----- (9) 1. Photo-optical/photo-chemical enhancement_________________- (10) 2. Digital. ima@pemrocessing gtk bh ee lb eee (16) 3. Autoradiographic enhancement... —____- deudodi— (35) C.. Source materials for,enhancementwuijsotedel— A -~eeubecbik-— a (39) eT aOebd a SE A Ae” Cs TT a (48) II. The number, timing and source of the shots fired at the Presidential Sey Ek EDM OL CPT ee rE cer ir Re eee a NIE” YS Yetsie (47) me. Watren Commission findings ._--_..._ naitanpwedtece-daesensona (47) mB, 16 Panel's analysisiw all oman ule teen Bibb awhs. 3. (52) Bete PDPORGI APS ne ea in (52) 2. Visual evidence derived from observations of persons in the MOD MMIOE TUT ala lene ahdmnene bode Jasattatn ed 100) (57) re is aes SE de Lo (57) b. (Didterials And procedures -. ..«:shasass- bse-slelwideoll--»- -- (61) CALC LTT 111): a he or ac ec a, LTR SR A IST “Ta (64) RnR REN IAI a ss bt feos snot se snieboomen:lee nat Bn es (68) 3. The panning error—blur analysis of the Zapruder film______-_~~ (81) Rts Chioctelcete-..\, wee een wahetl Iainasinl adh. tlh.--—- (81) b. Materials and procedures o- pnp cdndbd accattantiLA 22h... -- (83) CETTEAh ae SR RE I ay RET ST PORES AT pane Cr Re (92) 3 MN STA Cae are RE PTET EY RI SORES Se TEs ae Re (95) Addendum—Comparison with results of the acoustics SENSAT RE EN POE R tet plone, Tee, uae pial (104) PROC LOT ANAIVEIS.. 0 uu.+ sentienaees aoa 2oil as wo (110) BPS UROCUUIOLIGN foe ok ee ee ee Be (110) OE et A) hk cual Ree ee eie ae, we (111) EE ee (115) TURSTAY LLDCS 2 se th ol nn eee et ee (123) Oh) Oa etd Rete ee anaes “aene: paarederk TTT Er hseacy: (127) Ch) "ine head. wounc-paser ee Cee ea, Ub Teor fe (127) (2) 71 DAGR-NeCk @8ne fe ee a (142) (3) The single-bullet theory trajectory__.__.________------- (156) Addendum A—Calibration photographs of the replica of President Kennedy's head- 2-17 ee ee (169) Addendum B—Correlating trajectory to the acoustics results: Trajectory of head-shot wounds based on AOE UOET LERTE O41 tare holes heattee a2 ws aha oe Pitta 5. Photographic evidence of Dealey Plaza______________- (241)—(346) SEE erassassin ~- 186) mae the alleged assassination weapon-- (186) UTES he1age phe caregaae dyBye chyslyeepiaaia fle, en apcnctmiabmeae po stkegin Stat leis (186) EE ERS WE Maes Sina einyer rere nines he ane er eo see ere. CL BS) Sen Caporale ANC PrOocEedires oo ern eae I gee a (190) SE IOTUSIOTIC. Ot ier tw o5 oe tk en me em ee eae Sm Oe (196) Addendum—Report on an examination of photographs of the rifle associated with the assassination of President John F. PON O0 y= no ered ee ee ee ane (197) Attachment*A-—Hquations==- == 2 eee ee Ne oe (234) Attachment B—Report of calibration__._______.________--- (235) Attachment C—Alyea film analysis___.____________.__---- (236) Attachment D—Random pattern on Oswald rifle________--_- (237) B. Alleged alibi evidence—The Billy Lovelady issue________- (759)-(775) (It) IV.” Conspitacy questions 22-268 2e Se a be a (241) A> Alleged; gunmen‘in, Dealey” Plaza x 3200. Soo ee (241) i eintrodueuone.. ois A ee Since en a ee eee (241) PSHE Fo (ctlalk NN keMAE doo ats Wa SE iC aL, MaalSe SEAM GA el (243) Gor Materiaisrandprocedtites tae ue a ee (244) ar OTIC INIGIUT es, oN at al ere ee ee ed ee (247) CATIA Vis ee os ee er J a ee (252) Red Toad So8 Raga ae gr a. Od bk 2 > SP CS (253) (1) The Dillard and Powell photographs________________-_ (257) (2k ie. ELees: Tin erent ne a eee (272) (s)ak He Dronson flim. ose cou et oe (288) bi=The-grassy- knoll-pecssscsbaseesor nesses te ee eee (289) €1)-Ehe -Willis. photograph one eee (293) (2)-“EFhe-Moorman.-photograpr oe ee ee ee ee (303) (3)- Fhe i ee ee eo ee eS ee hag Se ee (307) (4) Zapruder frame 413—Photograph of alleged head in the-bushs:2 222 =. ee ee, he ee oe (219) 6. Addendum A—Calculations on the boxes in the sixth floor WindOWsr2<2sregsssepehesgsr tacos sree eee eee ) 7. Addendum B—Calculation of head sizes in Zapruder frame 41Bnet ane esrigas SS SSsE 4s 82 St ae cee ee (340) Bee hotograph-authentication..-=222>- eee eee ae eee (347) 1 -EFhe-Oswald backyard"photographs: <2) seeoe eae oe (347) fisIntroductionss: Ysseitee soe gnse moh ee ee Oe (347) (“History of the backyard’ pictires 2) 2 ee (350) (2) Additional photographic evidence recovered by HSCA_ (361) Dz 1880622 Se nat hn rc rg er eee (365) ee Materialsiand procedures 2 er en ne ome ee ae (366) a4 Gon clusion == + - ~~ ne eee (377) BA rANSIVSISc orem ot ee ee LE ee (378) (1) Production and development of prints_______________~_ (378) (2)*"The- Imperial Reflex cameras ee ae oe (387) (3) Allégations of -fakeryc.: S3i2-e > eae oe de (396) (a) Unnatural lines in the vinicity of Oswald’s chin____ (396) (6) Unnatural and inconsistent shadows_____________- (411) (ey! Evidehicé or retotching=- 2 te ern ee (421) (d) Oswald’s identical heads and inconsistent body proportions... = =~ =a ee ee oe ee ee (426) (e) “Fhe-identical-backgrounds= 22 eo ee eee (431) (4)-Practical -considerationgas = = - 22 ae (437) Addendum A—Measurements of horizontal and vertical PATA Ax =e ce en ie eee eee ee ee (440) Addendum B—Report to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, U.S. Congress—House of Repre- sentatives The Oswald Backyard Photugraphs, by Dr. Leslie Stroebel, Mr. Andrew Davidhazy, Dr. Ronald Tl AYICIS Pe ee i ee ee ee (445) Attachment A— Glossary | Attachment B—Transcript of BBC interview | 2. Authentication of the Kennedy autopsy photographs and X- FAL: peadiaelea ann hamienan peg ays, lel Hs Regapecann SD. alles wy CR EEMEE SN (512) Se litroductione tc ee ee ee (512) breissties = Ps ar ee Sar ne a ee (513) Co oMaterigis 2 ee ee (515) dssProcediitesi wo oe ae ee ee ee (524 é.7 Conclision? 2. eee (527) FANANA VSI eo ee lo as ert ee (529) Sz. Anthropological issues et (539) a. Introductory statement of approach_______----------__-- (539) b. Authentication of autopsy photographs------------------ (561) (1)° Introduction..." anit. ee eee (561) V0 EC Repent inary: i. Par tees 2 ae Proven rhe (568) (3) Materials: —— satin Oe Se ee ee (570) (4) Conclsian’: aa sicdbac canta OO) ded cs (573) (5) Analysigcct ot otouc} =i) oT ne nate tits bo (575) c. Authentication of autopsy X-rays_.___.__..._.---.________ (596) Appa gee i0 (On eles eo re ee eine ee ee (596) Re) alONE Se nt aS ce es eles Ne Se ee ek Lae. (599) COP UVERRGPIEISS One mareeetiee eth k te kee eee Jig Leeda (600) (CTE LUSION Se won So ee irr oe eee ee eer oe (603) (So) CAnMISISHiEte rc iC 6 ITI OU VDE Ne AAR (604) d. Comparison of photographs of Joseph Milteer with that of an unidentified: Dallaa snectators oe. ke (611) POAC OU UChIONS seas eee dee te ea eee, eer ee eee (611) Rey MARA UG see Ce ek ©, eet a ee os erie (614) (SMM aterisis*examined ses: heer. ter eee (615) (4) rQonelusinnalticuinir fue Wai hioM, oF Freie. (617) LO) wel vps tTiot Ju colette shin bd ie! ehh byl oe pers he (619) (6) Addendum—Height analysis of Joseph Milteer________ (625) ogee WT egFig SENe800)6): ging ly a aleenal ne ape Rantp ingles: has Pag Pe ne (660) REVS [riPPOUICUOy eee fe Se Ee Se Sere (660) Lalsenectn iil. Tsmboor a ier ee ler EP as th (665) (de MaLerAlss Alek gcc poi eter 2 (666) PCA CUSHION Ao ee EES elie ee (673) fe orey Lebelieltle epenamenne des. etpadlln tips Sicathas Wat eae BUN Re (674) f. The “Second Oswald’”’ theory—Comparison of Oswald facial PuotoeTaniis Brook ee ee Soe OPO ae. 5 ae (732) fl. Jittroduction.ictust vcetasew ei the jo ies EE ie (732) aU STE, a NPL AE BAR RE SL ARS. Ye SE Gay he (733) 9 bat ilyEO ago, state etd hepa teckey empatln scarce. aa sae 0 (734) pay ea Class bee eee Ne see ee Se eee eee (736) (S)itsomelusionita tek a NS Fe FO EI, 2S (741) (6) banal? sities 35 batter el Ge. eta dstwe. As Pot = (743) Addendum A—Calculation of Penrose size and shape POOIICIONIG to ORS ae eee Fie eek (746) Addendum B—Oswald height and proportion studies___ (749) g. Comparison of photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald and Billy Nolan Lovelady with that of a motorcade spectator*____ (759) LUBE CERIO TE yah ed eePE RS EY Tl a Etat Sie tO (759) eg pidbp ge cpanel i ART | Pe ee eee ens et ae ab ny Rae (765) CE OL BAO SN SE AB) ak ei alee tegeet icho bene ed Ones (766) MnGCondlusinn 262 VSYs 10 OW Uy eRe OTs we Bhs. (769) LS) Anal ysisen Sites co count ponte thesaby: heey (770) omments on the panel’s report by Robert Groden___________________- (786) *This section is not directly relevant to any conspiracy issue, but rather pertains » the question of an Oswald alibi. See sec. III-B. .% tS ak : ria attanes ie cae meen 8)’ : a es) Re Te; ent Pe bey lye hry 7 T ed pry) at f 5 tol \ eal ke ont iaem ry i tng) es — te aa + ~ A i) a - 53 as meet errr sly ee Sinn ceed as wa é mn - ~ tg 7 Ee ereP a x sedate ba *y py fe aci~ of , AE Sa ened r¢ i anes Yi oan Ape hes demctsy pre hoe ari Ce ats oo. L Abie 2 hatiaano eels et¥ comepage We a alice™ aa ¢ EF Sete eg {*te Rae Ny -per on -eatatpasioas io ae at acl a *, ne) ae reeled i ‘ 4Ot ¢ aim . ‘ 4 orn ee ~ ea ‘ : hee “he iit . pied f ener id apedi ane iil Lio waglare, o ieg il ii - » ~ ay get gaol wt 465 Pr - ; l vie “gt | A uae isa ee Breit 4. a5 oie & kn ihe ke =|hioh tt * BBR) ie ALS eres wn ore ves u bia é t aes bd ene 2iaba ke 5 e ees i S e \% D. Fan! Fakes yy Lita ‘ji biewso es tyanid 4! (tAee ae ) exepiey ong ay Hand vi . thi igh:i olmae ne Sty , 560) ESE A lie. Cee Seatac) ek oats. newaner aah a Ta p= en ceecee Seen ; * s * * PUR ties & —~—— - , jw be yo AES i) = | 7 gt ee sav fait) SY co, bel : eae weil <2 ia be dente slide linge 2%, ae ory Donen Shit er as te fae “A Meserogo : wlone'y (PS) ' _ 7 P “fay yah ae ies ie +.tte engi bne” boa. a | epee uel welita l Sear et re ed) ERA | \ dirksadgiod biaweOks. grtbebbe gi ho aiic oregon pe aescatanty . overt dw vhvedownd sale | od aloe: ies Wy pair haat jing... afladgwD youl iyaaa, ah ; Dis Sp ae “taar) .* s ; 1 ri ‘ a ae 4 fitted J =a « scone) beauty .ait’.‘ : a {30 adatreieel Ry. - «, 14 . ond > {NG 2 Meaty 3 ; * Saanlices Pat ian: uta tk ea oS, Ch se V8 el. ote {43% 4 ont >» ed by dé Wels se. i i = "rea a © alg? Aes — pe aspents SO ET OE RAR AI eee AGUA T. wig! * ‘4 ‘5 u { ; TOEAgel? hte EIN oi wettot 1gc seat Wetgeey 3 ABot fy. anindan .y, eae Ae nts ery hae | sa te tle We Pd tia) at a! 4“ : ees ¥,; Lae , a obese 4 ib ae a, ty) Lecuew Bawit ae Sse i it; i—-« adalat ‘ Nip’): 4 At a 23 : of yboe : K; bl 5 ‘ iis ' ; ant ci) st al ape faeces a s = pre-e t ' 4 y(Sl a“ ni eae eh 4 aoy Tatretostsce,. : | b- hie ee lie inhi ihe eee: +i Ad i ee 7 7 Tes . aq : shyt - = mod « -“ "These IF ZAPRUDER PANNED HIS CAMERA PERFECTLY, AND MAINTAINED GOOD HORIZONTAL PANNING BUT DID NOT PAN SMOOTHLY, THE JIGGLE RECORD WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS: o.- e e e oe oo - eee e@ e = | tune II-2.— Illustration of technique used by Frank Scott. If Zapruder had made no panning errors, the background points from frame to frame would have been plotted as illustrated. 22 ZAPRUDER FILM FRAMES 139-208 100 Frames 139-281 nse one Frames 261-315 Frames 315-368 a seated ore aed Figure II-3.—Actual plotting of background points from frame to frame by Frank Scott, showing Zapruder panning errors. Illustration on top, showing only frames 139-208, is enlargement of portion of illustration on bottom. 23 These were transformed into quantitative measurements by a vector subtraction process: A 20-frame running average of the rate of angu- lar motion was used to predict the point where the camera should be aimed in frame n, bed on the place where it was directed in frame n—1, A subtraction was then Wait between the n-/ to m vector which should have appeared and the vector that actually did appear. This vector difference was then measured to determine the panning error between frames. (86) ‘The results of these measurements were then plotted to trate visually the times of greatest panning error in a manner similar illus- to Figure II-1. (See fig. II-4.) In both Figure II-1 and Figure II, a threshold line was then drawn horizontally across the graph to separate visually the areas of greatest. (i.e., unusual) blur from “noise”, or the normal panning errors that occurred throughout the filming simply because the camera was hand held. Any such threshold the line, of course, must to some extent be arbitrarily placed. The of blur that resulted from an unusual external stimulus (e.g., extent shot) may not, therefore, always be precisely delineated a gun- Zapruder’s true startle reactions may have begun a frame by the line. earlier, or later. than indicated by the placement of the or two threshold line that was chosen, but blurs above the threshold line are well above the average. (*}X9} UL peqtosep poygjeur Aq ‘uUBUIZIBA “HM Aq d10q pojyueseId SaINSBOUT [BOTIeUINU 0} SYdvIs S.4300g WOIJ PsdNpel sia soinsvayw) “09g YuBIg Aq JoqjJoOUB 0} VUIZIZ VUO WOIZ PoINsvou SB “BulTyOVI} YJOOUIS Uy S1O1IQ—'fF-]]I Aan y e+ Zt+ I+ ) I- o- e- b- G- Q- L- 8- Hie | | | | | | | | | | | | eee: OlE OME OSE OFS OSE OZE OIE OOS O62 OBZ OZ O92 OSZ Ove OFZ O22 Ol2 OOZ OG! O88! OL! O9! OSI Obl €— i| 3YNLYVdsd Pop Q Ogee WO¥S 2A mi 235 aie 3.53 HLOOWS ~72m OL SOs po St RS) ea “-ubls pulyeg Hat" no Bulkio ‘Buljooes wepnudoZ } 2, Secs ae x SO a et ~. cS ) Js Oger et ° Oe ears SO - ONINNVd SYONNS Xe ONINNVd yaanudvZ 25© \ ~ (87) Following our measurement of blur by these two different methods of the panning errors, the results of Luis Alvarez’ study, re- ported in the American Journal of Physics, vol. 44, p. 813 (1976), were also reviewed. Instead of measuring the blur itself, Dr. Alvarez measured the difference in blur between frames and calculated the rate of change in blur, thus providing a sensitive record of any un- usually erratic movement by Zapruder. All three sets of measurements were plotted on a single graph and used in the subsequent analysis. (See fig. II-5.) ‘SIXB [B]UOZIIOY ZUOTV W10}}0q puv do} 4B UdAIZ 1B SPUOIES UT SOUT} PUB SIOQUINU OUIVIY ‘STXB [BIT}IOA JO UOTOIIIP SUOTV PIBMUMOP 1O PIBAdN VAIN JO YYZUsT AQ Po}BoIPUT ST 10110 Suruued Jo injq jo opnj}luseyy “(m10}}0q) zolvATy “J pue ‘(aul,T MOTeq ‘do}) JJoog Yuva ‘(eur, eAoqe ‘do}) uusMVIVy “I “M Aq poealiop sv ‘UY Jopnidez 94} UT ‘S1O1Io SUTyOVI} IO sin{q qSeZ1Iv[ JO Spiode1 JUspUsdepuUT ve1q} 94} JO UOsTIvduiod W—'¢-J[[ AANdIy ot 1+ O i= o- a v= a= w= An 8- o= __ (0V3H OL LOHS Twiv4 S-t- WOYS SGNOOD3SS) JWIL (DJDP ZerDAIy ) NOILVYSTS09NV VYSWV9 ( payooaygns esion) G3SO19 YSLLINHS ‘SYOUNS ONINNVd SWVYS-YSLNI 26 ( PeyoD4IqGNs aSjON) N3dO YSLLANHS ‘YVd TWVILN3GISSY¥d NO Y¥MsE Ovd O22 002 O8l O91 Ovl <— ‘ON 3SWVYS Y30NYdVZ O9¢ Ove Ocge OO0¢ O82 O92 sveouatneeaes “-uBls pulyeq Wat” 4no Buy k9 ‘Bujjooeu sopnidoz ot p. Bee yee oases 6? Paty > x eae Ae ON s oN NS S »~ oN 9 € Bi 9y? + » o* RS> > hy Se ae RS > A o\~ Ry eone A MeON OR ey) S eS©» o* >* MySS & ade eS ee » e ghF eyoO Y. ve x) SSs SY oO 9 ¢° qa * Yo < x Oh ” & o> Loa * Yd we “ye s 27 (88) To assist in the analysis, a time-scale in seconds was added to figures II-1, 4 and 5. ‘The zero point in the time-scale was chosen to coincide with the moment when the trigger was pulled on the fatal head shot. This was estimated to have been at frame 310, based on estimates of the average running speed of Zapruder’s camera in con- junction with other scientific evidence. (89) Specifically, Zapruder reported that his camera was fully wound when he started filming the motorcade as it turned onto Elm Street. In 1964, the FBI tested the camera and found that during the first 30 seconds of its operation (after being fully wound) Zapruder’s camera ran at between 18.0 and 18.5 frames per second, with the average estimated to be 18.3. Note that the range 18.0 to 18.5, indicates a range of 3 percent uncertainty in all time intervals measured from the Zapruder film. (25) (90) Fragmentary material from the President’s head is seen flying upward and outward in frames 313 and 314. The fragments are al- ready airborne and in motion in frame 318. Extrapolation backwards indicates that the explosion began in frame 312 rather than 313, since this would be the frame nearest to the moment when the fragments left the head. Other scientific evidence, such as wound measurements, and trajectory analysis, indicated that the fatal head shot was fired from a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle located in the southeast. corner win- dow of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.(26) The distance from that window to the limousine at frame 312 is approxi- mately 265 feet.(27) Since a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet travels at approximately 2000 feet per second,(28) the bullet flight time would have been 0.18 second, or the passage of approximately 2.4 frames in Zapruder’s camera. Subtracting these two frames from frame 312, ‘itis apparent that the fatal shot was fired at approximately frame 310. :(91) Using frame 310 as the time of the trigger pull, it is possible to ‘determine that the sound from that shot would have reached Zapruder at frame 313-314: Zapruder was standing approximately 270 feet from ‘the Texas School Book Depository window, sound travels slightly more than 1,100 feet per second. (29) and the sound of the shock wave from the bullet itself reached Zapruder slightly before the sound of the muzzle blast from the window. Finally, the pattern of jiggles that was discovered was com- pared with the results of the committee’s acoustics study. The cor- relation between the jiggle analysis and the acoustics test is treated separately in an addendum to this report. (c) Conclusions (92) 1. Two pronounced series of jiggles or blurs on the Zapruder ‘im, one during frames 189-197, a time when other visual evidence sug- gests that President Kennedy was first shot, (30) and another during frames 312-334, following impact of the head shot, may reasonably de attributed to the photographer’s startle reaction to the sound of runshots. (93) 92. The timing of the shots associated with these two sets of lurs can reasonably be determined to be approximately 6 to 7 seconds ‘part. (94) 3. Other blurs which might relate to gunshots, appear on the 42-370 0 - 79 - 3 28 film both between these two sets and elsewhere. Due to the absence of other visual evidence associated with these blurs, the Panel made no finding as to their cause. (d) Analysis (95) As noted above, the sound from the fatal head shot would have reached Zapruder at frame 313-314. Frame 313 is also the moment when the head explosion became visible to Zapruder. The largest blurs or jiggles on the three independent data sets of Hartmann, Scott, and Alvarez occur between frames 312 and 334. Because some of the jiggles are minor and appear on one or two of the data sets but not all three, it is difficult to determine exactly when the reaction in question actually started. The Hartmann data set shows a very large blur in frame 318 with smaller ones at 313 and 314. (See fig. II-1.) The Scott measurements show several smaller jiggles between 313 and about 324. (See tig. II-4). The Alvarez data show the largest acceleration of camera motion at 315, but with a cluster of motions from 312 to 322. (See fig. II-5.) Empirically, it appears, therefore, that Zapruder’s startle reaction apparently occurred about 1 to 5 frames, or about 0.05 to 0.8 seconds after the sound reached him. (96) In fact, the Panel found some empirical corroboration for this conclusion. Startle reaction times in response to the sound of gunshots were measured in the experimental work of Landis and Hunt in 1939. (31) For “head movement,” “movement of neck muscles,” and “initiation of arm movement,” Landis and Hunt found that the reac- tion time was 0.06 to 0.2 second (i.e., 1.1 to 3.7 frames). (32) Thus, these much earlier experimental findings support the conclusion that the film actually records Zapruder’s startle reaction to the fatal shot immediately after Zapruder heard the sound of the shot and saw the head impact through his viewfinder. | (97) In all three data sets, the second longest and second greatest (in terms of magnitude of blur or jiggle) disturbance in camera pan- ning motion occurs between frames 189 and 197. Since our objective is to estimate the time the shots were fired, the blurred frames of most interest are those from the jiggle’s beginning to its peak rather than to its decline. For the various data sets, the time from the first strong increase in blur to the maximum blur or jiggle is as follows: Hart- mann, 191-197; Scott, 193-194; and Alvarez, 189-195. (See figs. 11-1. II, and IT-5.) (98) Assuming that a shot from the sixth floor Texas School Book Depository window caused this reaction (a distance at this point in time of approximately 165 feet from the limousine) (32), and that Zapruder’s reaction was again almost immediate (within 1 to 4 frames after hearing the shot), it is possible to calculate backward (adding sound travel time to Zapruder of 4 frames, to reaction time of 1 to 4} frames), and determine that the shot may have been fired between} frames 181 and 192, and impacted in the limousine between frames} 182 and 193. This conclusion is reinforced somewhat by the Photo-] graphic Evidence Panel’s visual observation of the Zapruder film which reflected a reaction by President Kennedy to some severe ex-} ternal stimulus by frame 207 when the President disappears behind a sign frame. (24) Assuming a uniform reaction time in both cases by Zapruder, and that both shots originated in the same location (the 29 sixth floor window), the trigger pull on this shot would have precede d that of the fatal head shot by approximately 6.3 to 6.9 seconds (mini- mum, 313-197 over 18.5 equals 6.3; maximum 313-189 over 18.0 equals 6.9) .* 5) The blur or jiggle results have been examined for other blur episodes that possibly correlate with additional gunshots. The three next largest episodes of blur are listed in table 1, in which the largest and second largest blur episodes discussed above are designated A and B. The third, fourth, and fifth largest blur episodes, which are similar to one another in magnitude, are listed respectively as C, D, and FE. (100) It is difficult to determine with certainty whether any of these _ represents an additional shot or shots. Blur episode C, detected by all three analysts, occurs at frames 220-228, just before movements of Governor Connally in which his cheeks suddenly puff out and his face contorts in a grimace, followed by two apparent outeries in which his mouth opens wide in what appears to be a shout of pain. (101) Another shot could have caused blur episode D at frames 158-160. It occurs much earlier in the motorcade than had been considered possible for a shot by either the Warren Commission most Warren Commission critics. Nonetheless, this brief blur or was detected by both Hartmann and Scott; Alvarez published no data for such an carly part of the motorcade because he used the Warren Com- mission volumes which do not even reproduce Zapruder frames earlier than the mid-170’s. The most interesting thing about this hypothe tical shot is that Mrs. Kennedy and Governor Connally testified before the Warren Commission and Governor Connally testified the select committee that they turned to their right when they before heard the first shot, (35) and both are seen in the film beginning a turn to the right immediately after this hypothetical shot. This appears par- ticularly striking in the case of Governor Connally, whose head turns from midleft to far right in less than half a second, beginni ng at frame 162. (102) A fifth episode (E) possibly associated with a shot occurs frames 290-293. Although it contains a very small blur detected at both Hartmann and Scott, as well as a more substantial blur by in Al- varez’ data, the Panel found no visual indications of reaction s to shot by the limousine’s occupants coinciding with this segment a of dlur in the film. (103) Other jiggles or blurs were present in the photographic ord. (See fig. II-5.) Without further data. however, the rec- magnitude ind duration of these jiggles, as those with characteristics of C, D, and E, are insufficient to warrant any conclusion concerning the num- der and timing of any additional gunshots. *Assuming a uniform reaction time, and a uniform distance of Zapruder from ‘he shooter, it is possible to ignore delays caused by sound travel from the ) hooter to Zapruder and Zapruder’s reaction time in calculating the spacing of he two shots, since any assumed value for such delays would be self-canceling 1 the calculation. 30 TABLE 1.—BLURS IN ZAPRUDER FILM | nen EEE ee a Frames show- Designation ing blur onset : of blur (beginning to Relative magnitude of blur episode episode Shown by maximum) eh a ee RI3333-- Se Ai acs JB Alvarez“ice 312-318 Largesti4 20 2. cde eager ss- 2-7 Hartmann____.....----- 313-318 Scott, Se roesee 313-314 Ao Alvarezk viewers of OG 330-334 Hartmann__.. . £2. .2-2. 331-332 cott. erase.Ee 331-333 1 Seta PEEL] pe ad ia RR RES Secere STS, ATER REAEN B Alvare?.o.3 tas 4 +32. 189-195 Hartmannf: 22 S20 222 191-197 : cottzssrtc Meee es _€ 193-194 Star gest fate. see 2k ed eee ee ean n nse apn C AIVSLO? dere cae cao 220-228 Hartmann____..--.-.--- 7 Scott.n.: 5.82 cate 226-228 Ath largest Messe vie) 28890) - Pests ce ee D Hartmann___._--------- 158-159 Cott:2: nse Fs eae 3 158-160 Stnarpest iss. srete. chee ALE fie it, ssa E Alvaret=. secs. eee 291-293 Hartmannostergs2- 2238 290-291 Scotto). - eee See 290-292 1 About equal. ADDENDUM Comparison WirH RrEsvuts oF THE Acoustics ANALYSIS (104) The acoustics analysis suggests the possibility of four shots, the first, second, and fourth originating from the Texas School Book Depository and the third having been fired from the grassy knoll. (36) This appendix discusses the extent of agreement between the acoustic timings and the major blurs on the Zapruder film. AL AS SE ES —t (105) was hit in the back. (53) (See JFK exhibits F —226-249. ) 42-370 0 - 79 - 4 = = | oie > Saleme Aas aac, ht & S ox - iis -_ a Pog ea Died Figure JI-14 (146) The Croft photograph also shows Kennedy’s torso facing} nearly straight forward. At Zapruder frame 190, however, he is seen to} turn his head about 60° to his right (see JFK exhibit F—226), and it is} reasonable to expect that he also would have rotated his shoulders a small amount in the same direction. Most probably, this rotation was only 5° or less, as judged by the absence of obvious large shifts in body} position in the Zapruder movie. Thus, it was assumed that, except for turning his head by about 60° and his torso perhaps by 5°, Kennedy) made no major changes in posture after frame 161. This assumption i supported by a photograph taken by Phillip Willis at about. the time of} Zapruder frame 202.* (See fig. II-15, JFK exhibit F-155.) *Hstablishing when the Willis photograph was exposed in reference to the Zapruder film was done by the Photographic Evidence Panel by studying the Zapruder film and determining when Willis could actually be seen snapping his picture. In the study of the back/neck wounds trajectory, calibration photographs of the anthropometric dummy were taken but not used (that is, for measuremen analysis) because, unlike the head, the torso is quite mobile, and consequently) there is no stable relationship:between the various body parts. It was decided that to rely on the calibration-photograph technique in this instance would have give a false sense of accuracy to the analysis. FIGgurE IJ-15 (147) The Panel then had to adjust slightly the wound locations that had been provided based on the autopsy photographs and X-rays be- cause of their difference in body position from that at the time of the shooting. During the autopsy, Kennedy was in an anatomical position with his face tilted as if looking upward about 35°, a posture and con- ‘formation significantly different from those at the time of the assassi- nation. (148) Appropriate adjustments were made under the direction of “Dr. Clyde Snow, a forensic anthropologist at the Civil Aeromedical Institute of the FAA’s Aeronautical Center. It was determined that returning Kennedy’s head to a normal position relative to his body would, according to laboratory tests on men of similar build, adjust his neck wound down about 1.0 centimeter toward his breastbone. Return- ing Kennedy’s head to the position it was in at the time he was first -wounded—about 60° to the right of straight ahead of his torso—caused only a slight change in the position (approximately 0.1 centimeter to the right of its observed position in the autopsy photographs). (54) (149) Because the Zapruder film showed that Kennedy had raised his right shoulder slightly so as to place his elbow on the side of the limousine, the resulting movement of skin at the inshoot location was also assessed. It was found that the wound was approximately 0.1 -entimeter higher and 0.2 centimeter closer to his midplane than the 20st mortem photographic observations by themselves indicated. (55 ) While only the vertical position of the neck wound was substantially altered by these changes in conformation, all the adjustments were neluded in the analysis of traj ectory. Sots (150) Using the average locations and adjustments, the back wound ‘Was located at a point 4.4 centimeters to the right of and 1.1 centi- 46 meters above Kennedy’s neck wound at the time of the shot. The bullet was moving from rigit to left by 18° and downward by 4.0° relative to Kennedy if he were sitting erect (not inclined forward or aft). Since Kennedy was believed to have been turned about 5° to his right — relative to the fore-and-aft lineof the limousine, it is concluded that | the bullet was moving from right to left by 18° relative to the midline of the limousine. By a similar analysis, since Kennedy was inclined , slightly forward by approximately 11° to 18° (from true vertical) slope account the 3° the downward slope of the trajectory, taking into to of the street, was established at between 18° and 25° (4° plus 11° 3°). The Panel decided to use an angle of 21° for its analysis. 18°, plus through (151) The analysis by the USGS of the limousine’s motion orientat ion Dealey Plaza provided both the location and angular to Zaprude r frame 193; (56) of the limousine at a time corresponding frame 190. adjustments were then made with reference to Zapruder (See fig. II-10, JFK exhibit F-133.) ined by draw- (152) The direction of the trajectory was then determ ing a line on a scaled diagr am of Dealey Plaza ata 13° (that is, 18° car and extend ing it to the rear until minus 5°) angle relative to the ing frame the first buildi ng that it encoun tered. Assum it intercepted epts the Texas | 190 as the moment of impact, the trajec tory line interc tory appro ximat ely 14 feet west of its southe ast | School Book Deposi slope of the tra- corner. (See fig. II-16). Using an angle of 21", the am and found to | jectory was then drawn onto a similarly scaled diagr almost level | at a point intersect the Texas School Book Depository with the sixth floor windowsill. (See fig. I1-17. ) Ce titan avis AtiLeeson eal cea fege ) Ett es . if Hi Zi a oe Sees Mt «Hl | . \ FIGuRE II-16 47 SLOPE OF BULLET CAUSING JFK BACK-NECK WOUND FIGgurE II-17 (153) computed from the corresponding distance v’ measured on the en-— larged print and the magnification / by the following formula: c=’ /M The magnification of a contact print is 1. : (206) Since the objective is to compare lengths along the bore of the rifle or lines parallel to it, it is possible to work with the simple equa- tion for computing distances along a straight line, rather than the more general three-dimensional photogrammetric equations. In prac- tically all cases, the line of the rifle image passes nearly through the center of the picture and almost always the rear sight is near the cen- ter. Thus figure 6 is fairly representative. The derived equations also are valid if the rifle image is displaced from this central position. In that case, the image distance derived would not be the axial image distance,* “) but the distance from the image of the rear sight to the rear nodal point * @ of the lens. The computed proportions of the rifle would not be affected. | Fiaure I1J-6.—Geometric relationship of camera to the rifle titled at an angle ?. : (207) As shown by the equations set forth in addendum A, when} one point of an object is imaged at the center of a photograph, the] actual distance X between that point and another point on the object] may be calculated by measuring the corresponding distance # between *These technical terms may be defined as follows: © The optical axis is the line joining the center of the lens and the center of] the image area. 71 these points on the photograph itself. This may be accomplished if we know the angle of title ¢ between the linear object and a plane normal to the optical axis* “ of the camera lens, the distance uw from the center of the object to the front nodal point* ‘ of the lens, the axial image distance v, and the distance from the rear nodal point of the lens to the camera image. The equation is: ond Ux » cos t{—2z sint If we know w and the focal length* “ of the lens, we can compute v, using the following equation: v=uf/(u-f) (208) Inthe present case, neither the distance wu from the rifle to the camera lens, nor the angle of tilt ¢, nor the axial image distance ¥, is usually known. Most of the information needed to compute a distance X on the photographed rifle from a distance a2 on the negative is lacking. Nevertheless, the objective is not to compute such lengths; rather, it is to compare relative proportions of the parts of rifles pho- tographed with the proportions of parts of the rifle in the Archives. To accomplish this, it is only necessary to scale the length of each rifle photographed to the length of the rifle in the Archives. The tilt angle ¢ that makes the ratio of the length from the rear sight to muzzle and the length from rear sight to butt is the same as the corresponding ratio on the Archives rifle.* The tilt angle ¢ is found by the following 2»quation, which is based on the scaling described : tanit= soe x Fie heh pe: i X, where: ¢ is the tilt angle XY, is the length on the Archives rifle from rear sight to one end, ¢2 is the length on the negative image from rear sight to one end, X, is the length on the Archives rifle from rear sight to the other end, + is the length on the negative image from rear sight to the other end, ind v is the axial image distance (lens to film) The subscript 1 is assigned to the distance corresponding to the end of che rifle tilted away from the camera, and 2 is for the end tilted to- ward the camera. All measurements were from the vertical plane of the ear sight. ® The front nodal point is the point of view from which the scene is imaged yy the camera. The rear nodal point of the lens is the corresponding point in mage space. The ray of light from the rear nodal point of the lens to an image »oint is parallel to the ray from the corresponding object point to the front nodal Oint of the lens. ® The axial image distance is the distance along the optical axis from the ear nodal point of the lens to the center of the image area. © The focal length is the axial image distance when the camera is focused on ninfinitely distant object. *It may be mistakenly argued that this analysis seems to take for granted hat to be proven because the angle that is found makes the 2 ends and the iiddle of the rifle image correspond to the proportions of the rifle in the Archives. levertheless, once the angle of tilt and the distances are found, 10 other dis- ances are computed using the same equation. The degree to which these 10 dis- ances correspond to distances on the Archives rifle is the basis for determining vhether the rifle photographed has the same proportions as the Archives rifle. 72 (209) As one looks at a photograph, depending on the degree of tilt, it may or may not be obvious whether the muzzle was tilted away from the camera or toward it. There is a mathematical test that can be applied to the measurements on the photograph to determine which way the muzzle was titled, assuming that the photographed rifle does, in fact, have the same proportions as the Archives rifle. The sight-to- muzzle length divided by the sight-to-butt length of the rifle in the Archives is 465.8/553.0. If the corresponding ratio for lengths meas- ured on the photograph is less than this number, the muzzle was fore- shortened because it was tilted away from the camera. If the ratio is greater, the muzzle was tilted toward the camera. (210) For the sake of convention, each measurement of sight-to- muzzle and sight-to-butt length was assigned a positive or negative number, depending upon which way these respective parts were tilted in relation to the camera. The respective part tilted away from the camera was assigned the positive number and the respective part tilted toward the camera was assigned the negative number. See table 3. (211) Ifthe tilt angle ¢, the axial image distance 7, the length X;, on the Archives rifle, and w; on the photographic negative are known, it is possible to compute the distance uw from the center of the object (the rear sight of the rifle photographed) to the camera lens: XxX; Uu= (v cos t=a, sin fF) V1 (212) Given these five relationships, the following sequence of op- erations were used to compare a photographed rifle with the rifle in- the Archives. The lengths of many parts of the rifle in the Archives were measured. The points to which measurements were made are) named in table 2 and the measured distances are given in the first column of table 5. All lengths were measured along lines parallel to the bore. The corresponding lengths were measured on a photograph. Twelve photographs, representative of all the photographs examined (see table 1) were selected for measurement. These measurements are given in table 3. (213) When the negatives were available, as was the case for pho- tographs by William Allen, Dallas Police (one instance), and Me- Camy, the enlarged magnification was computed from material de- leted, see text measurement of the distance between frame borders depicted on the enlargement and measurement of the actual distance between frame borders by the Geological Survey. In all other cases, magnification was estimated.* (214) The focal lengths of camera lenses were known for the back- yard photograph (calibrated by the Geological Survey ; see Addendum | B), McCamy’s photograph (calibrated by McCamy), and the Dallas} *Magnification, focal length, and object distance were estimated by knowing or assuming the size camera used and by visual inspection of the given print. | These first estimates provided a starting point for the computations. A series . of computations refined the estimates until a consistent set of values was found. If the assumed camera size were erroneous, the assumed magnification would be wrong and the axial image distance computed would be off by the same factor. These effects would cancel, so the erroneous estimates would not affect the determination of the proportions of the rifle. It would be immaterial whether we were measuring a 2x enlargement of a negative 4 inches wide or an 8x enlargement of a negative 1 inch wide. 73 Police laboratory photographs (nominal focal length supplied by Dallas Police).(76) Other focal lengths were estimated by taking into account common practice at the time the photographs were made. The object distance w was measured for the McCamy photograph. In all other cases, it was estimated. Sequence of Computations (215) 1. Based on known or estimated object distance and focal length, the first estimate of axial image distance v was computed by the second equation in paragraph 207. 2. Based on known or estimated magnification, negative image lengths x were computed from measured corresponding lengths x’ on enlargements by the last equation in paragraph 205. 3. A first estimate of tilt angle ¢ was computed by the equation in paragraph 208. 4. A second estimate of object distance uw was computed by the equa- tion in paragraph 211, based on the first estimates of v and ¢. 5. A second estimate of axial image distance v was computed by the second equation in paragraph 207, based on the second estimate of u. 6. A second estimate of ¢ was computed based on the second estimate of w. 7. A third estimate of « was computed based on the second esti- mates of vw and f¢. 8. The computations were done repeatedly, each time using the last computed estimates of ¢, u, and v. From one computation to the next, _the successive approximations changed less each time until, finally, no appreciable change was found from one computation to the next. This determined the set of values of u, v, and ¢ that scaled the two main parts of the photographed rifle to the Archives rifle and took into account the tilt angle. (216) Given w, v, and ¢, the first equation in paragraph 207 was used to compute the lengths Y of various parts of the rifle as deduced from the lengths x of corresponding parts on the negative image. The com- puted lengths X of the parts of the rifle could then be compared di- rectly to measured lengths of parts of the Archives rifle. If the lengths of various parts of a photographed rifle were proportional to corre- sponding parts on the Archives rifle, the lengths computed by this procedure would match the lengths measured on the Archives rifle. (217) In performing these calculations, the same scale for all meas- urements was used. It was uncalibrated except that the centimeter livisions were checked for consistency. The rifle was measured with jn uncalibrated steel metric tape. (218) The results of these calculations are set forth in tables 4 and 5. In each instance, the relative lengths of the corresponding neasured parts were found to be proportional, and the resulting com- outed lengths matched very closely. In performing the computations, t 1s important to bear in mind the sign of Y and @. They are negative vhen referring to the part of the rifle tilted toward the camera. In articular, the second term in the denominator of the first equation in aragraph 207 is a negative quantity toward one end of the rifle and »ositive toward the other. 219) The two endpoints of the rifle and the rear sight are anchor »oints for the analysis, so they should not be regarded as measured 74 que given values. Each of 10 other points was measured by the techni The on which the points were visible. for all of the 12 photographs deviati on of mean value was comput ed for each point. The averag e deviation the values from the mean of each point was computed. The was com- of the mean value from the value for the Archiv es rifle puted. All of the data are given in table 5. eters of the (220) The computed distances were within 3 or 4 millim reflects an corresponding distances on the rifle in the Archiv es; this s on the approximate error of 1 percent between the actual length raphs. A compari- rifle and the lengths computed from the photog that the comput ed distanc es involved son of tables 3 and 5 shows ces meas- multip licati on factors rangin g from 4 to 17 times the distan magni- ured on the photographs. Thus, the errors of measurement were fraction fied by these amount s. Since measur ement errors of a small ably ac- of a millimeter should be expected, such errors would reason count for the deviat ions from the Archiv es rifle. claims of (221) The agreement of the data clearly contradicts the in proport ions of the rifles photog raphed and offers gross discrepancies same | strong evidence that the rifle or rifles photographed had the only | proportions, within reasona bly expecte d experi mental error. The way that there could have been a rifle depicted in these photographss — with proportions substantially different from those of the Archive ed _ rifle, and yet matched when mathematically oriented at the comput been if someon e deliber ately manu- angle ¢ and distance wu, would have ly the factured a special rifle with all dimensions distorted in precise right way to appear to match when viewed at some angle other than ¢. | In that case, it would have been necessa ry to align this special ly con- trived rifle and the camera very meticulously at the time the pictures | were made. It is highly unlikely that anyone could have perpetrated such a ruse without detection in front of the Book Depository or in the | halls of the Dallas Police Station a few hours after the assassination of the President. Aside from this possibility, the method used would show close agreement only if the photographed rifle had the same pro- portions as the Archives rifle, within reasonably expected experimental | error, and, of course, this is not what has been claimed by Warren | Commission critics. (77) | (222) In making the measurements, it 1s necessary to give some at- | tention to perspective. The simple equations refer to a line, that is, the} centerline of the bore of the rifle. They also apply to nearby lines par- | allel to that line. Nevertheless, if the rifle is tilted and twisted about) the centerline, as shown in figure 7, the twist throws the image of the} butt to the right. In making the measurements, this must be judged and} the line drawn from the butt to the centerline must be angled in keep-| ing with the perspective; this means that the solid line in figure 7,] rather than the dotted line which is perpendicular to the centerline must be used. This comes quite naturally if we let our visual sense guide| us. (Notice that even in the crude drawing of fig. 7, the dotted line does} | not appear to be perpendicular to the centerline. This is an optical illu \} sion. If the perspective is sensed, the solid line appears to be moref nearly perpendicular.) High precision requires this technique to bq used for all measurements when the endpoints are not the same dis} tance and direction from the centerline. The case illustrated in figure 4 is an exaggeration of photograph 11 (see table 1), where the form of the butt provides a clear indication of the perspective angle. | 75 IGURE III-7.—Taking perspective into account in measuri ng distances of points off the centerline of the rifle bore, such as the butt, comb, trigger, and trigger guard. 223) The backyard photograph presented some: special problems. he hand obscures the exact location of the rear sight. (See i.) A nearby groove on the outside of the chamber was visible fig. ITI- ar sight was located relative to this groove. The rear sight and the was not ntered in the photograph but the rear end of the bolt was. 3 was done relative to the rear end of the bolt and the The analy- en translated to be zero at the rear sight for comparison lengths were with the rchives rifle. 24) Vertical lines near the edge of the picture bow out very appre- ubly at top and bottom. This is known as “distortion.” The distort the lens said to have been used to take this picture was measur ion 2 Geological Survey. The image lies along the diagonals ed by designated © and 270° by the Geological Survey. The reported distort mg this axis was plotted and appropriate distort ion ion correc- ms were interpolated on this plot. The distortion correct ion was *mm for points 6 and 7. It was negligible for all other points. Since distortion was positive, these amounts were subtracted ices computed for the original negative image from. from dis- measurements the enlargement. No distortion corrections were made for otographs or for the enlarging lenses because no distortion other ‘Mon about the cameras that were used to take these photog infor- ulable. Nevertheless, since the photographs other than raphs was the dtograph were professionally made, the lenses probably backyard ul distortion. had very ©) In addition to the photographs of this rifle, a photograph made the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, D.C., *nt specimen of the same kind of rifle was examined of a dif- and analyzed the purpose of determining whether the relative properties nnlicher-Careano rifles are necessarily identical. of See figure III-8, 76 are shown in the No. 4 and No. 5. (JFK exhibit F-206) The data tables for picture No. 21. the rear of the (226) The metal parts coincide very well except for the firing posi- bolt. In this photograph only, the bolt appear s to be in This being tion. In all other photographs, it is in the cocked position. only point of the case, such a discrepancy should be expect ed. The of the wooden stocks is the comb, and the comput ed dis- | comparison of com- stance to the comb on this extra specim en is outside the range of this distanc e on all the photog raphs of the Archiv es puted values manu-— specimen. This suggests that there were small differe nces In - facturing the wooden parts. This is borne out by the further observa tion that two angles on the butts are measur ably differen t on photo- graphs 20 and 21 by the Metropolitan Police Department. The rear the line of the butt is at an angle to the perpendicular to the bore. On Archives specimen it is 6.5°; on the extra specim en it is 10°. The bot- tom straight line of the stock is at an angle to the bore. On the Archives specimen it is 18°; on the extra specimen 1HishO*, (227) There are many sources of error not accounted for in this analysis. The distortion of camera and enlarging lenses has been men- tioned. In addition, film changes size and shape during processing and subsequent to processing as the temperature and humidity change. The same may be said of paper prints. Finally, there are natural limits to the precision of measurements involving decisions as to the exact endpoints to set on, interpolation, parallax, inaccuracy of the scale used, and alinement of the scale with the center line. Ultimately, however, when the computed distances were scaled to the photographs, the deviations from the Archives rifle amounted in most. cases to a small fraction of a millimeter. It would be reasonable | to expect that the effect of the potential errors cited would be of that magnitude. Identifying Marks (228) Twenty-one photographs were taken of the rifle in the National Archives in Washington, D.C., on April 18, 1978. These photographs, | figures 4a—-u, are numbered from A-1 to A-21 in the upper right-hand corner. See table 6. Identifying marks are lettered on the photographs. Table 7 indicates the earlier photographs from the preceding section on which the same marks may be observed. There are 56 citations of 22 different identifying marks on the early photographs, and 18 on the photograph of the alleged assassination weapon that was recently made by the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, D.C. The list of identifying marks includes the more prominent markings found on the photographs from the preceding section but is not exhaustive. been cases, smaller or less prominent nearby marks are seen as ell. (229) Identifying mark L refers to the pattern of vertical lines ap- parently left in the horizontal groove by the woodworking operation used in manufacturing the stock. These may be regarded as several points of evidence. The mark “VE [trefoil] K” (identification mark U), the date “November 22, 1963,” and “PMS” or “RMS” “N ovember 1963”, have been scratched into the butt, as shown on pictures A-6, A-10, A-11, A-16, and A-21, possibly by law enforcement officials. Only the trefoil of mark U appears on the Fort Worth Star Telegram 77 photograph No. 13 in table 1, but the initials in identification mark U are seen on photograph No. 15 taken by the Dallas Police Department later that day. The lighting revealing the trefoil should have revealed the initials immediately to either side of it in picture 13 if they were, in fact, there at the time that the picture was taken. None of the cited identifying marks were observed on photograph No. 21 of another specimen of the same kind of rifle. A FicurE III-4a.—McCamy’s Archives rifle photograph. 78 Ficure IlI-4b.—McCamy’s Archives rifle photograph. Figure IJJ-4ce.—McCamy’s Archives rifle photograph. 79 Figure III-4e.—McCamy’s Archives rifle photograph. 80 Figure III-4f.—McCamy’s Archives rifle photograph. Ficure IlI]4g.—McCamy’s Archives rifle photograph. 81 \ *~ Figure ITI-4i—McCamy’s Archives rifle photograph. eds ate ings Figure III-4j—McCamy’s Archives rifle photograph. oot. NRO. ee aber: Figure II1I4k.—McCamy’s Archives rifle photograph. 83 12 FicurEeE I]I-4m.—McCamy’s Archives rifle photograph. 84 one pad secrete Figure IJI-4n.—McCamy’s Archives rifle photograph. FIGURE III-40.—McCamy’s Archives rifle photograph. 85 Figure III-4q.—McCamy’s Archives rifle photograph. FraurE I1I-4s.—McCamy’s Archives rifle photograph. 87 4 20 Fiaure I1I-4u.—_MccCamy’s Archives rifle photograph. 88 mark, mark S, (230) Significantly, the largest and most prominent appears in the a gouge mark that appear s on the backy ard pictur e, also in three other gun as it is portrayed in the Alyea movie sequence and 7. While photo graph s of the rifle as well. See table postassassination that Commission the FBI was disinclined to testify to the Warren this gouge mark was suffici ently unique to warran t a positive identi- ficatio n of the assass inatio n weap on as the same gun that. Oswald is rd pictur e, (78) the Panel’ s forensic shown holding in the backya m _pat- photog raphic special ist consid ered this mark to be a rando ve identif ication . See figure III-8 terning sufficient to warrant a positi (JFK exhibi t F-206 and adden dum C). my oo ex nee ee = . s RM PELE SE SEES SBE AI Os xe pride fms Lo exhibit F-206) Identifying mark S (gouge on forestock) ge a o be a ‘random pattern.” (See addendum D.) Clockwise from ft : Ein argement of Archives rifle shows mark S (No. 1); Archives rifle ee and another Mannlicher-Carcano (No. 3)—mark S only visible ox No. 2; de Mohrenschildt print of CE 133-A (No. 4) and Fort Worth Star Telegram photograph st of rifle shortly : (No. 5) ; marks visibl 3 : af ter discovery on enlargements of both i sites oi ¢ 89 (231) Finally, the most common misconception regarding photo- graphic evidence is the idea that all photographs of the same object must look alike. The appearance of the image depends on level and directions of illumination, point of view, kind of film or plate, expo- sure, focus, and a host of other factors. Pictures A-1, A-2, and A-3 in this series were made with the camera and rifle in the same position ; mly the lighting was changed. Note the difference in appearance, par- icularly in the wooden parts. Picture A—1 is directionally lighted from he upper left, picture A-3 from the upper right, and picture A~2 was liffusely lighted from overhead. The same kinds of differences are seen n A-5 and A-6, in A~7 and A-9, in A-6, A-7, and A-8 and in A-10 md A-21. Note that mark A appears light on a dark background on victure A-1, but dark on a light background in picture A-2, simply »ecause the lighting is different. One must be careful not to conclude hat marks were not on the rifle at the time a picture was made simply vecause the marks are not seen in the picture. Yonclusion 232) 1. A comparison of the relative lengths of parts of the alleged sssassination rifle that is in the National Archives with corresponding »arts of what purports to be that rifle as shown in various photographs aken in 1963 indicates that the dimensions of the rifle (s) depicted are onsistent. | 233) 2. A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as hown in photographs today with marks shown on the rifle in photo- raphs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is 16 same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard pic- ire, and the same weapon that was seized by Dallas Police and appears 1 various postassassination photographs. TABLE 1.—PHOTOGRAPHS ANALYZED [In chronological order of original image] 0 No. Identification No. Source Description —3a: ae eee he tye ey as ee Dallas Police (Oswald)...___.________ oy daa Backyard photograph. teas 2 HSCA 003403_._____ Dalla® Polite 270th 2 Rifle where found. ee ee HSCA 007536_._____ WFAA-=TV, T..Alyeg:._.. to ee Movie in book depository. el Se T HSCA 003295_______ Dallas Times Herald, Allen 5-11_______ Rifle carried in street. dcaean HSCA 003295. .____- Dallas Times Herald, Allen 5-12_______ —3c: Do. AG Ge B HSCA 003295.______ McCamy’s print of above.._._________ 1S Do. Sek Ee HSCA 003295_______ Dallas Times Herald, Allen 5-13______. tpeahae eaten HSCA Do. 003295_._____ Dallas Times Herald, Allen 5-15_______ Do. Sal. 3 Eb Eee Fea ips lhGee ay ore SE Dy McCamy’s print of above.____________ SERS Do. GEES HSCA 003294_______ United Press International..._._______ (Enlargement of No. 5). he Te HSCA 003295_______ Dallas Times Herald, Allen 5-16... __ Rifle carried in street. SE eee ee | HSCA 003294. .._.__ United Press International........____ (Enlargement Se of No. 7). ee HSCA 003295_._._... Dallas Times Herald, Allen 5-17__.____ Rifle carried in street. | eS a HSCA 003295_______ Dallas Times Herald, Allen 5-18_______ 0. EE a HSCA 003356_-______ } Fort Worth Star Telegram__._________ Rifle in police station. oe ee HSCA 003294_______ United Press International No. 1402594_ +g Ee Do. HSCA 003356______- Fort Worth Star Telegram____________ Do. Meee tl HSCA 003403_._____ Dallas Police Department_____________ Laboratory photograph. «BES eee HSCA 003403....._______ CS EMS 2 2 SE, Sea Do. ed ee ee USGA COS0OS ee Sie eB gS ee| Eee ERG Do. Sioa a: WO Or a BaF DE Ee es De ae (Negative) laboratory photograph. OEE ee I ak Federal Bureau of Investigation. ______ Laboratory photograph. | a anes Semi fe Ge Qe oe MeCany fo f.) Ee Be Rifle in National Archives. a MPD 139 4-15-78___ Metropolitan Police Dept., Wash., DC__. aE Laboratory photograph. : ee MPD 542 4=15-78_....____ee ee tk My Laboratory photo of a different specimen of this kind. table 7, photographs depicting ID marks. 90 TABLE 2.—Selected points on the rifle and rifle images (Measurements were made from the rear sight to each selected point) Muzzle. Front of band supporting front sight. Rear of band supporting front sight. Front end of bayonet mount. Front end of bayonet mount ring. Front end of ring over the stock clamp. Front end of stock band. Rear flat of rear sight. OR OOANM WIE. Front of trigger guard. 10. Front of trigger. 11. Rear of bolt (bolt closed). 12. Comb. 13. Butt. J79VL SHLONIT—'E GIYNSVIW NO SINJWIDYVINI (WW) 42-370 YdessojOUg “ON O 10 bE eG IT él bl SI 9I Ll 81 61 02 1 eee ee ee ie . apes Ce sti E01v cbs ‘v80 re cS 0Sv 82-1 “61 10I— 8 79 reOe te Sonew et Noa DE SOI 8 “SE— 6 60I— 2 “868 81S 0°08 hea FASS TTS 871 9°9¢= 688 L°36> |) Ae 001 8 = J we oe pte es) O7SE- “90I— S 1°96 2'0S 0°82 Loa 6Y¢ 0°Lv Soe. BA L°98 “‘v6— € 9:66— 0°86 v . ——- I oe ee ak ee th Se ‘bt9 8°19 ‘0S— y Lev ‘0b8 ae | 9€ is+ S ea a 98— ¢ 9° eS C86 ‘98— G 08Z L°ty “798 dere dG v1= Se as Sale ween,DR MieAon SR °C8 = oi “¢8— 0 9 pieces anh Ber ‘08— 9°08 0 L’vl 6ES ‘09S €y— 8 8€v 0°LE LSt= €°L9 Aziz eo! 0°SZ acull,oc 68-. ie... 0/cl= ew | ha 7 a “EZ8 "ve9 €¢— 8 2°22 12c 0‘II— '6€c 8 el 0v—6 Becy— GeV nl eee. SeO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 eee aeeo OOo 0.655 6‘al— 0°8 s3> 8—€ L’€ ‘vI— € ‘v19 ST€ ae To) OI aes p c 2L€ 8 2L€ 6 ELE Lele 2 ble T 02 y LLE 2 SLE 6 “ELE 8 PLE yds RENE SORES 1 Se TE She | On a ones Saag ceeea? Deno SLE y Tey c Tey 6 If € Lev v Lev c cey I 824 Ley 6 62 I °Ley Liev 6 °2EP ENCEY? PRY Seat eek ral RAT pe TETRA 3 ee arene LEP L’tvy y 2bV 8 2by v Eby 8 Ib Levy 6 “Sty 0 '€vy 6 ‘Ib y 2by 8 thy 0 tty L Shr Se Ee ee.8 ERO SINC Saree Ue Sears cee 8 SOF 8 SOP 8 “SSP 6 SSP L°S9¥ 8 “SOP L°S9¥ 6 “S9v 6 “SOP 8 “SS 8 “SSP 6 SOP SE |Be Maar Oi ine Ea a a Ree 8°S9P a 4 02 61 8I LI 9T SI vat él Il eG bE 10 OU SeAIYUY “ON YdesZojoug [ssayouijjiw uy syy3ua7] 3141Y SIAIHOYY NO SLNINOdWOD GIYNSVIW OL GIYVdWOD SLNINOdWOD 3141Y GIHdVYSOLOHd JO SHLONIT GILNdWOI—'S FTEVL 93 TABLE 6.—Photographs of rifle in the Archives exhibiting identifying marks (McCamy) National Archives Mark: photograph No. A— OM ia Figure III-3a.—Table 7. Table 1 (photograph No. 0). 94 Fr1cuRE III—3b.—-Table 7. Table 1 (photograph No. 1a). (See attachment c). inSy inoe A oe FIGURE III-3c.—Table 7. Table 1 (photograph No. 3a). aa eee: Ficure ITI-3d.—Table 7. Table 1 (photograph No. 5a). a 97 Figure III-3f.—Table 7. Table 1 (photograph No. 12). Figure III-3h.—Table 7. Table 1 (phot ograph No. 14). Figure III-3j.—Table 7. Table 1 (photograph No. 16). 100 TABLE 7.—PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICTING IDENTIFYING MARKS Photographic No. Exhibit No. from table 1 Identifying marks (l-3a a vocesso O Chackyard) 225. nc eae a cee 3. ([-Sboceera Ea eee ba Alyea moviela2f0i oie. eee ets A, B, C, D, H, S. 11-30 ae a See 3a Dallas Titiesd.272. 22. kee B, E, W. ill-3d__- Hee wee ece www ewe ew meee= 5a Dallas Times we a a a ee a a ee ee eee eee B, E Fi G, Ww. le re ee ee 11 Fort Worth Star Telegram___..._--- A, C, D, G, J, K. HI-3f eS re ee aces 12' United Progeitaj tonne see oeteuasece A, D, KG MA Ors l-3gots ate he occ se ee 13 Fort Worth Star Telegram. -_-_---- E, P, Q, part of U, W. (I-Sh ea ee eee 14’ Dallas: Police: fiewee a= ees Ene..0: (1-3). See eee eee 15 Dallas'Police: 4.2 Sat tales % U. ll-3] Re ec ent 16 Dallas Policeg.. 2005-22 icwue C, D, H, R, S, T. (1-3 2. See. oo. ek eee 18:F Bl Tepeaesee... een ae ah A, C, D, H, R Cappoets light), S, V. [31-3] See ee 20 Washington Police._.........----- A, C, D, H, 3, KM, NW, Oo Ro SatT, V. Commission Exurarr 139 © FieurE III-3k.—Table 7. Table 1 (photograph No. 18). ea 2~~ 101 METROPOLITAN, Fieure III-31.—Table 7. Table 1 (photograph No. 20). TABLE 8.—ERROR ANALYSIS Average Difference : deviation from Archives rifle Mean value from mean archives (mm) (mm) (mm) rifle Part No the Bids Aare. Ried ike 2 Ne ene ee, TAR OS a aE eae leer eet eee Ee Ee eae Dees ee ee et UE 8 eee 442.3 443.2 0.8 0.9 eee teeNee eS 8 ee NON IE eee Lae hell, J ae 431.0 430.3 1.9 —.7 i) te i Eee Se ee ee eee, 373.0 373.9 1.6 .9 Dee Stee eee 8 AAU SE Area Dk 355.9 355.6 iy | —.3 Re i ey ae bee ek es gre he any, ere 8s 329.7 330.7 1.6 1.0 4ee eee, eee ee i ee 188. 4 187.9 iheal| —.5 ae eee eee Oe eS ee 66. 4 67.45 ie 1,05 ADELE RGIS. A 3boP 3105) WAS TS Cera te Z213:3 210.6 1.9 —2.7 i) en ROS ee tape, eee ee Beh 261.8 262.3 1,2 ¥5 1.4. 2 Rites spa let Mere! yen ge eltDie oN te Peakoral,sa.send 359.0 357.9 ay —l.1 Ao 28 Cees Ale EP AO! FLAP IRE? Ae, BBS:Ola VS MEE gt _ SSP ZS ohbod ENIAC ei he Note: Average absolute difference: 1.0 mm. 102 ATTACHMENT A the (234) The required mathematical relationships are derived from geometry of Figure 1. Ww x sin (90°—o—2) sin (90-+-a) x sin (90+a) cos a ae sin [90°—(a-+)] cos(a-+0) W cosa X= cos a cos t—sin a sint Ux COS @ v (cos a cos t—sin a sin t) v cos a= (x 2+y 2)V/2 — x if 6 (2 2+y 2)1/2 UL x= v cos t x sin t (x 2+y 21/2 ———_____ ________ (x?-+-2)1/2 (x 2ty 2) 1/2 Ux X =——_—_————___ (First equation of paragraph 207) v cos t—2z sin t Given: the axial image distance v rifle length, rear sight to the end tilted away X, rifle length, rear sight to the end tilted toward X, image length, rear sight to the end tilted away a, image length, rear sight to the end tilted toward a, UX, UX2 AV= X .=———_"— v cos {[—2, sin t v cos t—22 sin t ne oe eliminate u: — (v cos t—2, sin t)=— (v cos t—2 sin 2) Ty Le XxX; Xo — v cos t—X; sin t=— v cos t—X; sin t Z1 Mop) "st 103 Xie TOK (X,.— X1) sin t= =~) v cos t ip) v1 X» XxX, Vv tan t=( —— — (Equation in paragraph 208) ip) vy Xo— Xj UX, X,=—— v cos {—2, Sin ¢t xX; u=— (v cos t—2; sin ¢) (Equation in paragraph 211) zy The equation in paragraph 205 and the second equation in paragraph 207 are well known in elementary optics. ATTACHMENT B No. 009215. (235) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Feston, Va., May 5, 1978. REPORT OF CALIBRATION oF 2% x 244 CAMERA Camera type 620 Imperial Reflex. Lens type DUO. Nominal focal length 77 mm. Camera: Commission. Identification :Exhibit No. 750. Maximum aperture £/12.5*. Test aperture f /12.5. SUBMITTED BY SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Reference: Letter dated March 2, 1978 from Mr. Michael Goldsmith. These measurements were made on Kodak Verichrome Pan film type 620, developed in D-19 at 68°F for 3 minutes with continuous agitation. This film was exposed on a multicollimator camera calibrator using a white light source rated at approximately 3500K. I. H'quivalent Focal Length: 77.55 mm. This measurement is considered accurate within 0.02 mm. II.—RADIAL DISTORTION D. for azimuth angle Field angle (degrees) De 0 90 180 270 ee te: eer er ee) aeeees 0 61 —25 —44 7 Seeds 22 SO2 re 2 et Fs IS 388 611 331 260 350 ae Ht FO01 s5oda258 bee cer. a52.dee seect at 1 ,646 1,767 *This is a nominal value as the shutter is not equipped with either a T (Time) or B (Bulb) setting for holding the aperture in the open position. 104 The radial distortion is measured for each of 4 radii of the focal plane separated by 90° in azimuth. D, is the average distortion for a given field angle. Values of distortion D. are based on the equivalent focal length referred to the field angle co-tangent for 7.5°. The radial distortion is given in micrometers and indicates the radial displace-— ment of the image from its distortion free position. A positive value indicates a displacement away from the center of the field. These meas- urements are considered accurate within 10 um. It is clear from these variations in the values reported among the four radii from the aver- age that a substantial amount of asymmetric distortion 1s present in this lens. III.—RESOLVING POWER IN CYCLES/mm Field angle 0° 135° 15° 22,.5° a Radial nasser ey on i ee eek ec Boe 14 16 207.05 2 eee JET ec At), perceived motion was apparent rather than real. This conclu- nm was based on the following considerations: 83) (1) The pattern of motion does not display a consistent direc- n, but appears to be attributable either to random motions or to rposeful, consistent motion of a very complex type; 34) (2) When the time interval between positions is considered, the tions appear to be quite rapid. For example, motions of 18 inches r second can be calculated. While such rapid motions are not impos- le, they are considered improbable when considered along with the nplexity of the motion as revealed in figure IV-6. 120 NEAR END in OF SEQUENCE NEAR BEGINNING OF SEQUENCE _ “OFK F- 15%. FicureE IV-6. (285) (3) In one two-frame sequence, the object disappeared: It 1 present in frame 59, but not in frame 60, and then is visible again 1 frame 61. This abrupt disappearance and reappearance is not consist ent with human motion and can be explained only as a photographi anomaly. | (286) In summary, a pattern of changes in the object in the sixt floor window is visible in the computer processed images of the Hughe film. Nevertheless, the Panel did not attribute this pattern of change to the motion of any recognizable object such as a person. While th overall pattern of changes is not necessarily inconsistent with huma motion, the Panel still concludes that the perceived motions are a tributable to photographic artifact. (287) The closed sixth floor windows adjacent to the open sixt floor window were also examined. The same type of artifacts we present. BRONSON MOTION PICTURE FILM (288) The original 8 millimeter movie film of the Texas School Bo Depository taken by Charles L. Bronson a few minutes before tl assassination was not made available to the committee until Decem 2, 1978. At that time, it was reviewed by several of the committ photographic contractors and members of the Photographic Eviden Panel. Based upon this preliminary review, the scientists believe th as in the Hughes film, the apparent motion in the sixth floor southea corner windows seems to be random and therefore is not likely to ha been caused by humans. Nevertheless, no firm conclusion could 121 which was not sached without applying digital image processing, Panel suggests ossible because of time and money constr aints. The that image enhance- iat the good quality of this film makes it advisable of Justice) if fur- ‘ent be considered. (possibly by the Depar tment ier investigative efforts are undertaken. (93) (b) The grassy knoll as it proceeded down 289) Tothe right of the Presidential limousine assortment of trees, Im Street in Dealey Plaza is a small knoll. An al persons present ashes, and concrete works is located on it. Sever that they thought i the plaza at the time of the assas sinat ion stated and commentators jots were fired from the region of this knoll, (94) ed that there: is id critics of the Warren Commi ssion have assert gunman firing hotographic evidence that supports the claims of a ‘om the area (95). to the grassy 90) The following photographic evidence pertaining 1011 was subjected to enhancement: (1) Willis No. 5 photograph; (2) Moorman No. 2 photograph ; (3) Nix motion picture film; and 4) Zapruder motion picture film. side 91) The Willis No. 5 photograph was taken from the south s. (96) Elm Street , near the inters ection of Houst on and Elm Street Elm he Moorman picture was taken from a point on the south curb of y en Houst on Street and the exit from Deale sreet, midway betwe side of Deale y laza. (97) The Nix film was taken from the other Main and Houst on Street s. (98) Zapru - laza near the intersection of r was standing on a concrete abutment by the retaining wall in the sassy knoll area (99). 192) The Zapruder and Nix films span an interval that includes the tal shot to the head, and therefore no ambiguity as to the time they sre taken exists. The time at which the Willis and Moorman photo- ‘aphs were taken is, however, difficult to establish. From the position ‘the President and Mrs. Kennedy in the limousine in the Moorman ‘iotograph, the Panel believes that the photograph was taken at the Tne of the fatal head shot, corresponding with frame 313 of the ‘ipruder film.* The Willis photograph appears to have been taken veral seconds earlier, at approximately Zapruder frame 202. 1. THE WILLIS PHOTOGRAPH 93) Preliminary visual inspection of the Willis photograph owed extensive blurring of all features of the picture near the re- ining wall on top of the grassy knoll. The blurring is most clearly ¢n in the freeway sign, which is in the line of sight between the re- Jining wall and the Willis camera. (See fig. IV-7, JFK exhibit |-155.) It was caused by motion that was complex and not uniform yer the entire image. The Panel judged that the motion was probably ombination of rotation about a point to the lower left of the optical is, and that a component of linear translation (that is, motion in a }-aight line) in the motion was also possible. a oe. because this Zapruder frame numbers are used as the basic time references n spans the most comprehensive interval of time. See par. 146, supra. Figure 1[V—7.—Willis No. 5 photograph (unenhanced). (294) The Willis photograph was scanned for possible input into computer. Since it 1s in color, the scan had to be a full-color scan. Thei the knoll area from the scan was presented on a full-color compute video display. The display and manipulation were performed at th University of Southern California. (100) (295) ‘The retaining wall at the top of the knoll was subsequenth enlarged by a computer operation similar to enlargement by phote optical and photo-chemical techniques. This computer display mad visible an object whose size and shape were consistent with a huma being, positioned just inside the retaining wall. (See fig. IV-t JFK exhibit F-160.) The object possessed colors with a distinct r semblance to flesh tones, as revealed on the color display. The Pane perceived the object to be that of a badly blurred image of a perso! ate aa in dark clothing, standing or leaning just inside the retainin wall. : 123 F-16090 Figure IV-8.—Willis No. 5. Wall Image Enhancement. (296) Since the image was badly blurred, an attempt was made to use the computer to remove the blur. Blur removal can be accomplished if its extent is not too great. (101) Unfortunately, the image was so severely degraded in the region of the retaining wall that deblurring efforts were not successful. (297) The next computer processing step was to make measurements of the color values of the object behind the retaining wall in order to compare the perceived flesh tones with those of a person at another location in the Willis photograph. The photograph was scanned in color: Separate measurements were made of the three primary colors, red, green and blue, from which other colors can be made. (298) After scanning, an image analyst at the Aerospace Corp. viewed the image on a color video image display and positioned a com- puter-generated dot at those points where colors were to be measured. The computer then recorded the red, green, and blue values in the image at the dot’s positions. A similar analysis was carried out at the Uni- versity of Southern California. (299) Regions measured at the Aerospace Corp. included the flesh tones of the object. near the retaining wall and of Marilyn Sitzman, the secretary to Abraham Zapruder, who is visible in the Willis photo- graph. Sitzman’s flesh tones were measured both in shadow and sun- light. At the University of Southern California, flesh tones were meas- ured for the object at the retaining wall and for several people: A policeman, a bystander, and a child. In addition, measurements were made of Mrs. Kennedy’s hat, which was pink in color and had a flesh tone appearance on the video display. (102) Ho.-370 0 - 75. = 3 124 (300) The Aerospace Corp. measurements showed the flesh tones of the object near the retaining wall to be comparable to the known flesh tones of Zapruder’s secretary. USC’s measurements also showed sim- ilarity between the flesh tones of the object and those of known per- sons; however, the similarities were not as strong as those found by Aerospace. The measurements of Mrs. Kennedy’s hat were found to be distinguishable from the measurements of known flesh. Nevertheless, the differences of Mrs. Kennedy’s hat from known flesh measure- ments were only marginally greater than differences of flesh tone meas- urements from each other. (103) | (301) Based on these measurements, as well as visual analysis, the Panel concludes that the object was most probably an adult person standing behind the wall. First, the general shape and structure of the object, including the location of the flesh tones, appear to be human. Second, the height of the object in relation to the known height of the wall is consistent with that of an adult of average height (5’6”’ to 6’ tall). Third, the measured values of the flesh tones of the object are comparable with those of people in the photograph. Fourth, an addi- tional Willis photograph, No. 6, taken after the Presidential limou- sine had exited Dealey Plaza but showing approximately the same field of view as No. 5, no longer shows the object near the retaining wall, or anywhere else; it has disappeared. (See fig. IV—9.) The mobility of the object greatly increases the likelihood of its being a person. + iii Figure IV-9.—Willis No. 6 photograph. Fiaure IV-10.—(JFK exhibit F-129) Moorman No. 2 photograph. (302) Since the panel concluded that the object was probably a per- son, the next question was whether there was any evidence of a weapon associated with this individual. Visible near the region of the hands is a very distinct straight-line feature extending from lower right to upper left. The panel notes, however, that the image is badly blurred in this region and that the direction of the blurring is the same as the southeast-northwest orientation of the linear feature near the hands. The blur would stretch any small point object on the wall into a linear object. As the blur could not be clarified, the panel could reach no conclusion as to the existence of a rifle or any other weapon in rela- tion to the person standing behind the retaining wall. 2. THE MOORMAN PHOTOGRAPH (303) The Moorman No. 2 photograph is a black and white Polaroid print that has suffered from handling during the intervening years. A number of large and small defects were visible on the photograph when the panel examined it. It, too, shows the grassy knoll and the retaining wall in the same region where the person was identified in Willis No. 5. (See fig. IV-10, JFK exhibit F-129.) It also shows another region of the knoll which critics of the Warren Commission have identified as important: The stockade fence. This fence runs toward the railroad overpass from the region of the retaining wall. Various critics have claimed that gunfire was directed at the President from behind the fence. (104) Finally, this is the area from which the committee’s acoustics analysis indicates a shot originated. (105) 126 (304) Since the Moorman photograph is opaque rather than a nega- tive transparency, a conventional image scanner (one designed for transparencies) could not be used to sample it for computer input. Given its condition, the Panel judged that there was little merit to using computer processing. Instead, to enhance the quality of the image, a high-quality negative copy was made at the Rochester Inst- tute of Technology. A series of photo enlargements was made from this negative. The contrast and brightness were altered in these to bring out any objects or details that might be visible in the shadows or underexposed regions. (706) These photographic enhancements were focused on the region of the retaining wall. (305) These efforts were not successful. The Moorman photograph was so underexposed in the region of the retaining wall that the al- terations in contrast produced no significant increase in detail. ‘The Panel could find no evidence of a person in a position on the retaining wall corresponding to that identified in the Willis No. 5 photograph. (306) The Panel did not carry out any enhancement work on the Moorman photograph in the area of the stockade fence because this area was judged to be of even lesser quality than the retaining wall area, which had yielded negative results. This decision, however, as well as the decision not to apply digital image processing to this item, was made long before the committee’s acoustics analysis was finalized. Although it is extremely unlikely that further enhancement of any kind would be successful, this particular photograph should be re- examined, in light of the findings of the acoustics analysis. 3. THE NIX FILM (307) The final photographic source relating to the grassy knoll re- taining wall is the Nix motion picture film. Several frames coinciding with the fatal head shot frames of the Zapruder film were selected for scanning and input into the computer. The scanning was performed at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory; the scanned data was then sent to the Aerospace Corp. for enhancement by computer. The mode of enhancement was an edge and detail sharpening process that has the effect of making the photograph appear more in focus. (107) Fig. TV-11 (JFK exhibit F-161) shows both original and enhanced eae a of the Nix film, centered around the region of the retaining wall. 127 Figure IV-11.—Retaining wall image (Nix film) Top: Enhanced. Bottom: Unenhanced. (308) The enhanced Nix film shows an object that can be construed as having a shape similar to that of a person. It is also possible to interpret this object as being of the same general shape as the person identified at the wall in the Willis No. 5 photograph. Nevertheless, the person in the Willis photograph displayed distinct flesh tones in the computer display of the image. No such pattern of flesh tones is visible in the enhanced (or original) Nix frames. 128 (309) The Panel could not conclude that the object near the retain- ing wall in the Nix film was the same as the person visible in the Willis No. 5 photograph. This image was not identified by the Panel as a hu- man being. It was more likely the result of a pattern of light and shadows cast on an object in the background behind the retaining wall by the nearby trees. ; (310) The area of the retaining wall image in the Nix frames was also examined for the presence of a flash of light or a puff of smoke from a discharging rifle, which some bystanders claimed to have seen. No evidence of either was found. j (311) The Panel also examined another controversial aspect of the Nix film. As Nix panned his camera from right to left following the motion of the Presidential limousine, the background of the grassy knoll came into view. In it, beyond the retaining wall and running along the crest of the knoll, is a region of deep shadow that is broken by patches of light. For a number of frames there appears to be a brightly lit object whose shape some have interpreted to be that of a man sighting a rifle toward the Presidential limousine. The right “arm” of this object is rigidly extended outward from the “body,” with the left “arm” tucked in more tightly, as if supporting a rifle stock. There is, between and above these arms, a shape that looks like a “head.” That object has been interpreted to be a rifleman in the classic military posture for firing a rifle. (708) (312) Magnification of the classic gunman object showed it to be indistinct and blurry. It was decided to process these images by com- puter techniques that would bring the image more “into focus” by making its features sharper. Computer enhancement work was carried out at both the Aerospace Corp. and the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. (709) (313) It was recognized that the limitation on improving the images would be the noise in the frames. Since several frames showed the re- gion in question, it was decided to apply a “frame-averaging” tech- nique. This process involves registering the frames and then adding them together to reduce noise, then enhancing the resulting product. This technique can greatly improve the quality of an enhance- ment. (1/0) Aerospace applied an enhancement process to the individ- ual frames identical to the one applied to the Nix film for the person- at-the-retaining-wall Image (see fig. IV-12, JFK exhibit F- 163) ; (117) Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory applied a more sophisti- cated technique known as MAP restoration. (72) 129 ee ane tee - FigurE IV—12.—Classic gunman image (Nix film) Top: Unenhanced. Bottom: Enhanced. (314) Figure IV-13 (JFK exhibit F-162) shows the original and enhanced version of one Nix frame as produced at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory; the original is shown at the top, the enhanced version at the bottom. A total of eight frames were registered, added and enhanced to produce the lower image. Kight frames, considered to have the least blur or noise, were selected. FieureE IV-13.—Classic gunman image (Nix film) Top: Unenhanced. Bottom: Enhanced. (315) After examining the enhanced image, the Panel concludes that the so-called classic gunman object was not a gunman. First, there is no evidence of human flesh tones in the “head” and “hands”; whereas the people in the Nix film have distinct flesh tones, the object here is almost uniformly white. Second, the white tones are identical in ap- pearance with the white tones of the light regions of the shadow pat- terns cast on the wall of the structure behind the retaining wall by sunlight filtering through the nearby trees. Third, in the enhanced image, the shadow pattern above and to the right of the object is seen to be connected to the object itself. (316) The Panel concludes that the most probable explanation is that the image is a chance pattern of sunlight on the structure behind the retaining wall. The Panel’s conclusion was strengthened by an obser- vation at the Aerospace Corp. that in one frame the “right arm” of the object disappears, only to reappear in the next frame. Such be- havior would be virtually impossible for a person, but is conceivable for tree branches casting a shadow pattern on a wall. (317) The Panel also examined the classic gunman object for evidence of a flash of light or puff of smoke. To enhance any phenomena as transient as these, the frames were differenced, that is registered frames were subtracted from each other sequentially in time. This technique makes transient phenomena highly visible. (713) No evidence flash or smoke was found. of any (318) The Panel also reviewed a previous report by Corp. (714) Itek measured the relative displacement of thethe Itek gunman in classic successive frames of the Nix film as the camera panned 131 from right to left. The extent to which an object shifts in successive frames can be used to calculate the distance from camera to object by applying the basic principles of photogrammetry. Itek calculated the distance from the camera to the object in this way and found that the calculations placed the object very near shelter 3 of Pergola 2 in Dealey Plaza. (7/5) Further study by Itek of the ground elevation in relation to the retaining wall showed that a line of fire toward Dealey Plaza would require that a rifle near this structure be 9 feet above ground. Itek concluded that the classic gunman object was a pattern of light and shadow on shelter 3. The Panel agrees with these conclusions. 4, ZAPRUDER FRAME 413—PHOTOGRAPHY OF ALLEGED HEAD IN THE BUSH (319) When the Presidential limousine accelerated and pulled out of Dealey Plaza after the shooting, Zapruder continued to follow it with his camera. As the car passes him, going from left to right in front of him, a bush becomes visible in the lower right of the film frame, moving into the field of view from the right and traveling to the left as Zapruder panned the camera to the right. For a number of frames, an object that resembles a head is visible within the bush. In Zapruder frame 418 the object is very distinct and clear. Extending from the re- gion of the head is a distinct linear feature. Critics have claimed that this linear feature is a rifle and that the head is of a gunman hiding behind the retaining wall and firing into Dealey. Plaza. (116) (320) The head in the bush is visible only in a few frames. From Zapruder’s position on an abutment, which was connected to the re- taining wall that lay to the right of the Presidential limousine (as it proceeded down Elm Street), his camera was the only one positioned so as to look through the bush and to the limousine in a geometry that shows the head, bush and limousine in the same line of sight. Zapruder frame 413, which shows the head object most clearly, was exposed ap- proximately 514 seconds after the fatal shot to the President’s head at frame 313.* (321) Since the head-like object is visible for several frames coming in from the right and moving to the left as the camera pans right, the Panel concluded that the object was real and not a chance arrange- ment of leaves. In frame 413, the head appears to be wearing a hat, such as a tennis hat, with a pulled-down brim. The “hat” is not visible in any other frames, however, and the Panel concludes that the “hat- brim” in frame 413 was only a coincidental juxtaposition of leaves near the head. (322) ‘ Frame 418 was scanned for input to a digital computer at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory.(//7) After scanning, the image was presented on a color video image display. The Panel again con- cluded that the object was a head. Flesh tones were visible on the back of the neck and ears. A hairline at the back of the neck was distinct and visible. The hair appeared to be fair in color; the head was either close-cropped or balding. (823) Having found the object to be a head, placement of the head and bush in relation to Zapruder became of great importance. Placing the bush was simple because the Nix film shows Zapruder and the bush *The time elapsed is readily calculated based on the camera framing rate of 18.3 frames per second. 132 ina series of frames. By using photogrammetric techniques, the USGS was able to place the Presidential limousine at the time of frame 413.(118) A line of sight drawn between Zapruder and the Presi- dential limousine passes directly through the bush, as seen in the sur- vey map of Dealey Plaza (see fig. I-10, J FK exhibit F-133). (324) To determine where the head lies on the line between Zapruder and the Presidential limousine, computer enhancement of frame 413 was undertaken at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. (779) The image was processed by a technique that is designed to bring details into focus, the same technique used on the classic gunman frames of the Nix film. The result of the processing is seen in figure 1V-14 (JFK exhibit F164), where the original and enhanced images are displayed. From the enhanced image, measurements could then be made to deter- mine the head location. FieuRE IV—14.—Head in bush image. (Zapruder 413) Top: Unenhanced. Bottom: Enhanced. (325) Accordingly, this photograph was then studied photogrammet- rically. A basic principle in optics states that the size of an image is xe ersely proportional to the distance of the object from the camera wt created the image.(/20) Using this principle, the distance of an object from a camera can be calculated by comparing the size of its image to the image size of a similar object at a known distance. The cep the image of the head in the bush was compared to the size of ‘he image of a head in the Presidential limousine. A simple calculation oan determine where the head in the bush was located on the line of sight between Zapruder and the limousine (see addendum B). 133 (326) The head of the Secret Service agent climbing into the Presi- dential limousine was used for the calculation. Several measurements were made. The closest to Zapruder that the head in the bush can lie was in the middle of the sidewalk that runs from the top of the grassy knoll down to the street. The farthest away would be 10 to 15 feet beyond the sidewalk.* (327) Based on this analysis, an inspection of the Dealey Plaza sur- vey map (fig. II-10, JFK exhibit F-133) revealed that the head in the bush was not in the bush at all. The bush lies between Zapruder and head, with the head itself an appreciable distance away from the bush. Accordingly, there was no evidence of a person actually hiding behind the bush. (328) Having located the head, the linear feature purported to be a rifle was examined. The computer-enhanced image shows a number of linear features similar to the one near the head, all extending in the same general direction as the alleged rifle. Further, close inspection of the enhanced image shows that the narrow part of the linear feature (the alleged “barrel” of the rifle) passes in front of leaves in the bush. Since the head lies far on the other side of the bush, it was geometri- cally impossible for an actual rifle barrel near this head to be situated in front of any leaves in the bush. (329) The panel concluded that the linear feature was not a rifle barrel ;it was only one of a number of twigs in the bush, all character- ized by the same general direction and spacing in the natural growth patterns of the bush. (330) Additional processing work was done at the Los Alamos Scien- tific Laboratory to study the region of the linear feature. (722) This processing, which was based on the knowledge that similar objects reflect light in similar ways, has been applied by NASA in analyzing satellite photographs of the earth for natural resources. (122) The technique developed by NASA is known as spectral ratioing and involves a comparison of color measurements by dividing measure- ments of the color values. (123) The objective is to compare the dif- ferent amounts of red, green, and blue light reflected by an object. This is done by obtaining a computer scan of the photograph’s red, green, and blue components and then measuring each one. (331) When the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory applied this spec- tral ratio technique to Zapruder frame 413, it found that the ratios in the region of the thick part of the linear feature (the “rifle stock”) were identical to the ratios of the light reflected from the Presidential limousine. (124) On the basis, the panel concluded that the “rifle stock” was only a hole in the bushes looking through to the limousine, which, by virtue of being coincident with a twig, created the false impression of a rifle. Thus, no evidence of a gunman was discerned by the panel. ADDENDUM A CALCULATIONS ON THE Boxes IN THE SrixtTH FLoorR WINDOW (332) The boxes visible in the Powell photograph that were not visible in the Dillard photograph** appear to be equally in full Sun as *See addendum B, par. 340 infra. **Two relevant photographs were taken by Dillard. This analysis is based upon the closeup view depicted in fig. 1V—2. 134 ts that the addi- are those seen in the Dillard photograph.* This suggesclose to the plane le equall y as tional boxes in the Powell photograph graph, ruling out the of the window as those visible in the Dillard photo being viewed by Powell possibility of boxes very far inside the room A simple calcula- from a viewpoint that was not availa ble to Dillar d. e in both Dillard and tion that can be used to place the two boxes visibl of the win- were very close to the plane Powell shows that these boxes Powel l photo- dow. This does not prove that the additi onal boxes in the , the appea rance of being fully graph lie equally close. Nevertheless thens the sunlit, withou t shado ws from the windo w frami ng, streng of the windo w. judgment that they do lie close to the plane dicular (333) Neither Dillard nor Powell had a camera angle perpen in the to the front of the depository building. Thus, they viewed objects ce, windows from two different angles. As a convenient point of referen in the panel chose the triangular-appearing box corner that is visible both the Dillard and Powell photographs at the lower right window frame. (See figs. [V-2 and IV-3.) (334) The panel constructed the geometry seen in figure A-1 (infra). The diagram represents viewing angles from above the depository building, looking down, perpendicular to the horizontal plane of the street. The circular point a represents the corner of the box seen at the right of theawindows; @ and £ are the angles made with respect toa perpendicular between point a and the plane of the window. (The plane of the window is assumed to coincide with the outer brick wall of the depository.) (335) The angles a and 8 are not known precisely, since the exact positions of Dillard and Powell are unknown. They were crudely estimated in the following way. Dillard was riding in a press car behind the Presidential limousine; the position of the press car was approx1- mately at the intersection of Houston and Elm when the picture was taken. Powell was on the east side of the intersection of Houston and Elm, and farther north than Dillard. Figure A-2 (infra) shows the approximate placement of the two photographers. The angles « and 6 shown in figure A~-1 were measured from A-1 to be approximately 20° and 40°. It is important to note that these are only approxima- tions. The imperfect knowledge of the locations makes it probable that there could be a +5° to +10° error in each angle. (336) In figure A-1, the distance ‘d” is the apparent displacement of the corner of the box in position between the Dillard and Powell photographs. The distance z is the distance from true perpendicular (perpendicular is a=0°). The distance hf is the distance behind the wall from which the corner of the box lies. It is measured from the box corner to the plane of the window. *See par. 269 supra. 135 (337) From figure A-1, the following two equations can be formed: x tan (a) =- h zt+d tan areas Since a and 8 are known, assignment of a value to d allows the two equations to be solved for the distance h. Solving the equations for a=20° and B=40° gives: h=d/(tan (a+ 8) —tan (a)) Sat NEG aa yp (338) The distance dis measurable as a fraction of the window width. The window was known, from the Warren Commission measurements, to be 36 inches wide. The shift d, when converted to a fraction of the width of the window, yielded d=8 inches. Thus: h& 5.8 inches, or the box corner lay approximately 6 inches behind the plane of the window. (339) While there are appreciable uncertainties in these calculations, the location of the boxes within 6 inches of the plane of the window is consistent with their apparent photographic position in full sunlight. To’ Dillard Te Powel Figure A-1.—Viewing angles for Dillard and Powell photographs. 136 7 TEXAS SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITARY { 4 ELM ST LOCATIONOF PHOTOGRAPHERS IN DEALEY PLAZA s2 a 5 eB LB a Q a ; 4 HOUSTON ea i The twenty-two photographers in Dealey Piaza and where they stood. A H P : Martin (color movie) Bothun (black & white still) Zapruder (color movie) | B F F Willis (color still) Muchmore (color movie) Cancellare (black & white still) , J R Cc , , Betzner (color still) Nix (color movie) Cablack (black & white still) K D t Underwood (black & white movie) Bell (color movie) Dorman (color movie) T E Couch (black & white movie hes (color movie Weigman (black & white movie) ( Bug ex ) - M U _ Rickerby (black & white still k & white Polaroid Dillard (black & white still) NAA ae Te thlLta Moo n (black and white Polaroi Bond (color still) Powell (color still) fap (black and white Polarerts Oo Altgens (black & white still) FIGURE A-2 Source: Courtesy of Josiah Thompson, author of “Six Seconds in Dallas.” ADDENDUM B CALCULATION OF Heap Sizes 1n ZAPRUDER FRAME 413 (840) Figure B-1 (infra) shows the geometry of the objects and cam- era focal plane. Head No. 1 is located at distance 7, and subtends an angle 6,. Head No. 2 is located at distance 7, and subtends an angle 02. 137 The common focal length is f. It was assumed that both objects are equally focused (or equally out of focus). The image sizes in the two cases are d, and d,, respectively. It was also assumed that both heads have the same dimension d. (341) Using the small-angle approximation: r0i:=d r0.=d Thus: 710; = 1282 and Ti 9 rm (342) In the image plane, however, the same small-angle approxima- tions give: fai=di f02=dz 0. de Thus: —=— = 6, dy Combining equations () and ©), This equation expresses the distance 7, as a fraction of the distance 7, the fraction being the ratio of the measured head sizes in the image. Thus, the key to estimating 7, is to measure the ratio of head sizes. (343) The measurement of the ratio of the head sizes is not simple because no other head in frame 413 is positioned the same as the “*head- in-the-bush.” Thus, it was necessary to make estimates of the head size of a person in the limousine. The estimation of head size is totally subjective as there was no analytical procedure to guide the estimates other than the obvious requirement that measurements of features be as comparable as possible for both heads. The width of the upper third of the head in the bush and the Secret Service agent climbing into the back of the limousine were measured because this portion of the head tends to be most spherical in shape, and hence, most invariant in size with respect to the viewing angle. (344) The head in the bush, being nearest to the camera and largest in size, could be measured without appreciable error. The head of the Secret Service agent is partly obscured by leaves; therefore, three measurements were made corresponding to an estimate of the smallest head, the largest possible dimension, and a “best” guess. The measurements gave the following values for 72: r2—.38r:, smallest estimate. r2=.A4ri, “best” estimate. r2=.50n, largest estimate. (345) These figures can be used to place the head on the line of sight. For example, in figure II-10, the distance from Zapruder to the limou- 138 sine would be multiplied by the fraction 0.88, and the corresponding distance measured along the line from Zapruder. The smallest value places the head in the center of the sidewalk. (346) There are possible sources of error in these calculations, but it is important to note that any errors would have to be substantial to place the head in the bush. For example, the ratio of head sizes that would place the larger head within the bush would have to be approx1- mately 0.20; that is, nearly 50 percent smaller than recorded for the smallest estimate of the Secret Service agent’s head. It is believed that the probability of errors of this magnitude is virtually zero. The placement of the head beyond the bush is a certainty. The placement of the head beyond the retaining wall is almost as certain, since the corner of the retaining wall would correspond to a ratio of head sizes of approximately 0.25. aaa Weer Sse A aye: Ficure B-1.—Head Size Calculation (Zapruder 4138). * B. Photograph Authentication 1. THE OSWALD BACKYARD PHOTOGRAPHS* (a) 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 *This section prepared under the direction of C. S. MecCamy and Cecil Kirk. with the assistance of David Hisendrath. For related public hearing testimony a and Kirk, Sept. 14, 1978, see HSCA—-JFK Hearings, vol. II, pp. 349. **A glossary of terms is available in App. A of “The Backyard Pictures,” Re- portwD the House Select Committee on Assassinations by Dr. Leslie Stroebel, ent RATE. Davidlazy, and Dr. Ronald Francis, October 1978 (JFK Document 0. 12902 [Hereinafter referred to as RIT Technical Report] ). See par. 445 infra. 139 nd two newspapers. These have become known as the backyard photo- ‘raphs. 348) Oswald himself, when shown the pictures at Dallas police ieadquarters after his arrest, insisted they were fakes. Through the ears, many critics have argued the same thing. In part, the contro- ersy was stimulated by a 1964 Life magazine cover of a copy of one ricture, retouched to enhance its quality. 349) If the backyard photographs are valid, they are highly in- viminating of Oswald because they apparently link him with the nurder weapon. If they are fakes, how they were produced poses far- eaching questions in the area of conspiracy. “Raked” backyard photo- srraphs would indicate a degree of conspiratorial sophistication that vould almost necessarily raise the possibility that a highly organized sroup 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, 1968, Dallas detectives sbtained a warrant to search the Paine residence in Irving, Tex., where Marina Oswald had been living. (125) The search concentrated pri- narily on a garage in which possessions of the Oswalds were stored. Among the belongings, Dallas police officials found a brown cardboard ox containing personal papers and photographs, including two snap- shots and two negatives of Oswald holding a rifle. (126) (Only one legative was made available to the Warren Commission ; the other has never been accounted for.) (127) (351) Onthe 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.) Accord- ing to officers present, Oswald denied that he had ever seen the photo- graph and claimed that someone has superimposed his head on another person’s body. Oswald was then shown the print (later designated as OE 133-B), which he also claimed was a trick photograph. (128) (352) Marina Oswald was later questioned by the FBI about the photographs. She said that she had taken them in the backyard of the Oswald residence on Neeley Street in Dallas. (129) She gave, however, two different versions of when the pictures were taken. She first told the FBI it was in late February or early March 1963. (130) Her testi- mony to the Warren Commission reflected the same thing. (731) In an FBI interview made after her initial appearance before the Warren Commission, 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. (732) (353) Other evidence available to the Warren Commission supports her later version. A rifle and a revolver were shipped to Oswald from different mail order houses on March 20. (133) The left-wing news- papers Oswald is holding were 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 be- fore Oswald allegedly shot at Gen. Edwin Walker on April 10. (235 ) From this information, the Commission deduced the likely date on which the photographs were taken to be Sunday, March 31, 1963. (136) M2=370 0 - 79 - 10 140 boxe 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 133-B) , 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 conclu- sions are as follows: 4 (355) (2) The photographs CE 133-A and B were taken with Os- wald’s Imperial Reflex Duo Lens camera. (138) Every camera has unique irregularities 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) Althoug heh could not documen t absolute ly the origin of CE 133—A. because its 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 charac- teristics of compositing or retouching. (140) Initial public controversy regarding the authenticity of the backyard photographs arose after copies of CE 133-A, which appeared to differ in detail from the origi- nal photograph as well as from each other, particularly with respect to the configuration of the rifle, were published in Life, Newsweek and other news publications. (147) He testified that the apparent variations in the magazine versions were caused by retouching, a common practice in the reproduction of photographs for publication. (242) (358) (3) The rifle in the backyard photographs is probably the rifle found in the Texas School Book Depository. Shaneyfelt photo- graphed the rifle, attempting to duplicate the lighting and rifle’s posi- tion in 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 of a grafting line between the mouth and chin, inconsistent head and body proportions, or a disparate square-shaped chin. (144) (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 the request of the BBC, he had examined copies of the backyard photographs and concluded they were fakes.* Similarly, a photo- graphic analyst with the Canadian Department of Defense reached the conclusion that these photographs were composites. (146) a *The text of a statement by Mr. Tho Technical Report. See par. 445 infra. i ) TIPS Ea alu ens Aaa 141 ) Additional photographic evidence recovered by the House Select Committee on Assassinations 61) Marina Oswald, in addition to giving two different versions to when the backyard pictures were taken, gave different versions the number of pictures taken. At first, she testified she had taken e picture; (147) later she said it was two. (148) In addition, Mar- erite Oswald testified that soon after the assassination she and arina destroyed yet another picture in which Oswald was shown lding the rifle over his head with both hands. (149) 62) The committee obtained an 8 x 10 print of an additional view Oswald holding the rifle in a pose different from CE 133-A or This photograph, a first generation print, * was given to the com- ttee on December 30, 1976 by Mrs. Geneva Dees of Paris, Tex. cording to Mrs. Dees, it had been acquired by her former husband, iscoe White, now deceased, while employed with the Dallas Police the time of the assassination. (/50) The panel designated this ently discovered photograph as 133-C (Dees). 33) The committee obtained another first generation print of CE 3-A on April 1, 1977 from the widow of George de Mohrenschildt. 51) In the manuscript of his book, which he was writing at the ne of his death in 1977, he stated that he and his wife had found s photograph in February 1967 among personal belongings they 1 stored in Dallas before departing for Haiti in May 1963. (152) 34) Two additional first generation prints, one of 133-A and > of 133-C, where obtained from former Dallas Police Detective shard S. Stovall on April 14, 1978. (753) Stovall was among the lice officers who discovered the backyard photographs during the rch of the Paine premises. (754) (6) Issue 35) Is there any evidence of fakery in the photographs of Lee rvey Oswald that show him standing in a backyard holding a e in one hand and two left-wing newspapers in the other ? (c) Materials and Procedures 6) The Photographic Evidence Panel examined Warren. Com- ssion exhibits CE 133-A and 133-B, the two backyard pictures ed from the Oswald residence by Dallas Police in 1963; CE 749, the zinal negative to CE 133—-B, and CE 134, an enlargement of CE —A.** In addition to these Warren Commission exhibits, the Panel lyzed the four photographs recently discovered by the committee: “) (1) A photograph designated as 183A-—de Mohrenschildt re- ered from the estate of the late George de Mohrenschildt; (755) 8) (2) A photograph designated as 1383C—Dees, obtained from Dees’ widow; (1/56) 9) (3) Photographs designated as 133A-Stovall and 1383C- vall, obtained from Stovall. (757) (See fig. [V—15, JFK exhibit F- , for a display of all of these photographic materials except CE- , which is shown in fig. [V—22.) \ first generation print is one made from the original negative. 134 pts examined by two panel members after the final panel conference uly 1978. 142 i @] - ° a ea ag ° Ciduiandl ae a a] ot, Poke ow” ae goon adprsd = x eZ ce)D cf = i=a | =} on 2 ct j BP ee - rom 2 2 ee U O = eS [= 2) — a = Sza os oO = po ucte Ly ee ae O— > ea pep wet Or Oo 0 Sac lu =z uJ Oc = FIGURE IV-15.—Oswald “Backyard Pictures’”—First generation prints and negatives examined by photographic evidence panel. (370) These items were selected because of the Panel’s policy 0 working just with first generation prints and original negatives. (158 Only these types of materials contain the most reliable photographi information; subsequent generation materials tend to lose detail i highlight and shadow areas, suffer deterioration of tonal quality, ant are prone to include new defects that may impair the accurate rep: resentation of the photographic image, CE 133-A, CE 133-B, 133A-d¢ Mohrenschildt, 133C—Dees, 133C-Stovall and CE 134 were identifiec 143 y the Panel as first generation prints. CE 749, the original negative to E 133-B, was the only negative recovered from the possession of the allas Police Department; consequently, it was the only original nega- ve available to the Panel for analysis. There is no official record splaining why the Dallas Police Department failed to give the War- n Commission the other original negative. (159) 71) In addition to studying the various backyard picture materials, e panel examined CE 750, which was alleged to be Lee Harvey swald’s camera (760) to determine whether it was used to take the .ckyard photographs. Next, the negatives and photographs were ith visually inspected and compared with known photographs of swald. The panel’s visual inspection included the use of magnifiers .d microscopes. As an aid in this process, a series of enlargements varying exposures and contrast ranges was made of CE 133—A and 3—B, thereby producing prints which ranged from very light to very rk. (See figs. [V-16 and IV-17, JFK exhibits F-192 and F-193.) ie detail in the darkest parts of the pictures could be most clearly on in the lighter prints. The details in the lightest areas could be yst clearly seen in the darker prints. In this way, the panel had the st opportunity of detecting any evidence of falsification anywhere the pictures. ~~ ge = = Figure IV-16.—CE 133-A printed at varying exposures and contrast ranges 145 ee HHH Figure IV—17.—CE 1383-B printed at varying exposures and contrast ranges. 42) In a further effort to locate unnatural edges or lines, as well differences in grain structure and contrast variations, the panel used gital image processing.* The negative of CE 133—-B was placed on a icrodensity scanner so that light passing through the film could be easured. Such measurements were made on microscopic square areas at were positioned in a square-by-square pattern, but the actual uares were smaller-than the silver grains on the negative. The meas- *See pars. 16-34, supra. 146 uring instrument determined how lighta numb or dark each microscopic expre ssed this as er in a scale of 1,0 square area was and the numb er for each squa erades of density. As the film was scanned, The compu ter could su : area was stored in the memo ry of a compu ter. of light to expose a tin sequently recall the numbers, and cause a beam small area w film. Each spot on a piece of unexposed photographic exposed to a magni tude corre spond ing to the relative lightness or dark ive. When the exposed film w ness of the area on the original negat origi nal image. | developed, it provided an enhan ced copy of the d to manip ulate the dats (373) The computer was also programe different from the ori stored in its memory. It could produce a copy contrasts; it coult inal in some specified way: It could vary the produ ce a more compl icated derivation enlarge the image; or it could en dark and high It could be prog rame d to searc h for edges betwe corresponding t areas and to print a line on the copy at the place | the edge on the origin al. were also visua lly inspe cted wi (374) The backyard pictures viewed in thr stereoscopic techniques that permitted the prints to be dimensions.* This was possible because the camera ’s moveme nt betweel 133-A resulte d in two views, only a short stan exposures 133-B and apart, of a single scene. When these two picture s are viewed togeth in a stereo viewer, they give rise to a three-dimensional image. se (375) This analytic technique is useful in the detection of fake because photographs of prints (1.e., a photographic copy of a phot graph), when viewed in stereo, will not project a three-dimension image unless made from different viewpoints along one axis.” Further, any retouching of an original photograph of a scene can | detected because when two photographs of that scene are viewed stereo, the retouched item will appear to lie either in front of, behind the plane in which it should be lying. It is virtually imp sible to retouch one or both images of a stereo pair with enough ski to escape detection when viewed stereoscopically. } (376) Finally, in addition to these methods of visual inspection, t materials were studied photogrammetrically. “Photogrammetry is science of ascertaining the positions and dimensions of objects fr measurements of photographs of these objects.” (162) In the Osw backyard pictures, photogrammetry was given particular emph in studying critical shadow areas. (d) Conclusion | (3877) The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the bad yard picture materials, | ata principle of stereoscopy is discussed in pars. 76-78 supra. . rik epee photographs or photographs made from the same camera positit } st 2g generally exhibit stereoscopic characteristics. Nevertheless, if a came’ pie eet and photographs ofa subject that moves are viewed stereoscopicall a a may exhibit three-dimensional properties, while the backgroul 147 (e) Analysis ) Production and development of prints ’8) The photographic prints examined by the panel were not of iform size. These variations reflected differences in how each had n produced and developed. CE 133-A and 133-B were considered be drugstore or photofinisher prints because they appeared to have n produced on the type of commercial photoprinting machine used photofinishers for camera stores, drugstores and mass-produced nts. 9). The photographs show a slight variation in the horizontal and tical dimensions of the prints and borders that were caused by arti- ts of masking position. On the back of each is the small graphite rk characteristic of automatic printing machines. It indicates to an stric eye scanner where the long continuous roll of prints should be Into individual snapshots. (See figs. [V—18, IV-19, JFK exhibits (79 and F-182.) As most drugstore prints, these were apparently pped slightly for aesthetic purposes by placing a white border und their periphery. Finally, the panel noted that CE 749, the rative to CE 133-B, contained small emulsion tears, which indi- ed that it had been abused in processing, as well as water spots icative of improper washing or drying. 0) CE 133-A and 133-B were determined to be first generation ause of the presence of very fine lines and marks that were occa- ned either by scratches on the film, which were caused by the 1era, or by torn or broken emulsion from the negative that occurred ‘ing development. Marks so fine and sharp would not have appeared h such definition on a second generation print. 1) On review of 133A-—de Mohrenschildt (see figs. IV—-20 and -21, JFK exhibits F-382 (front) and F-383 (reverse) ), the panel ed that it had been probably made in a high quality enlarger with a h quality lens. Nevertheless, the print has become yellowed with the sage of time, indicating that it was not adequately fixed or washed “ing the development process. 2) The uncropped black border around the edge of this print icates that it was projected in an enlarger with a negative carrier + was larger than the actual full size negative of CE 133—A. This e-of equipment might be found in a graphic arts shop or photo ating shop that uses many sizes of negatives. It is also possible that ‘paper easel might not have had the capability of masking a print size. As a result, the entire negative area is printed and the un- osed border area outside the full camera aperture has been recorded lack on the print. Because people normally like to have white bor- ; on their pictures, this is an unusual way of presenting a photo- ph. The sharpness of the markings (from the film scratches) within black border, as well as the presence of fine scratches and emulsion $s, indicates that this is a first generation print. 148 Figure IV-18.—CE 133—A and 133-B (front). N-EE- 149 HP) 2517C2 g 1? FIGURE IV. -19 .—CE 133-A and 133-B (back). 150 Fieure IV-20.—133-A (de Mohrenschildt) (front). 151 terete CTRL Oy 3 Poo a QC.0 19944 a Figure IV-21.—133-A (de Mohrenschildt) (reverse). 83) The 183A—Stovall print is approximately 5 by 8 inches. (See ; LV-22, JFK exhibit F-185.) This is not a standard size for photo- aphic paper. The person who made the print probably took a stand- d size sheet of 8- by 10-inch paper and cut it in half. Across the ttom border of the print is a black line. The lower right area of the ute border above the black line bears a black circle. The black border the bottom was caused by light spilling over the bottom border of @ easel mark because the mask was not wide enough to cover it. irthermore, since the mask contained a small rivet with a hole rough it, the paper extending under this rivet hole allowed the 152 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. <4 ond mi t we) 8 Cad | si CD) z © adnan: — CH oe ee > € ‘Jee aol | 7 ; invA FiqaureE IV-22. | (384) Since the original negative to CE 1383—A was square shapq (see fig. IV-20, JFK exhibit F-382), and because 133A—Stovall rectangular (see fig. [V-22, JFK exhibit No. F-185), it is apparei that the Stovall picture has been cropped with a standard white bord for aesthetic reasons. | 153 35) The 133C-Stovall and 133C—Dees prints (see fig. [V—15) o appear to have been cropped for aesthetic reasons in a manner iilar to 183A—Stovall. Moreover, because these two prints had the ne well-defined emulsion tears and scratches on them as the other st generation prints, they are likewise considered to be first genera- n. Both are enlargements from the original negative.* Ficure IV—23.—CH-134 (front). ‘Dallas police officer R. L. Studebaker testified to the House Select Commit- ' on Assassinations that in 1963, while working in the Dallas Police Depart- ‘nt Photography Laboratory. he made numerous copies of the Kennedy photo- ‘phic evidence for fellow Dallas police officers; included in the pictures dis- uted were prints of CE 133—A and CE 133-B as well as of the third pose not by the Warren Commission. Testimony of R. L. Studebaker, supra note 127. 154 4 oe he. Wel suid , Wars 3t ¥ Ficure 1[V—24.—CE-134 (back). pry ty at GHB TE ey iH (B DATE_2-2-7 (St Hing i had iit a Faure TY-25.—CE-750. Imperial Reflex camera. 155 the CE (386) Finally, CE 184 is an 8- by 10-inch enlargement of uced by 133-A negative. (See fig. IV—23.) It appare ntly was reprod l nega- the Dallas Police Department by enlargement from the origina paper. tive with an easel set that accommodated 8- by 10-inch enlargi ng 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. 1V-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 pic- ture materials. (388) Most cameras, particularly inexpensive ones which have been manufactured by injection molding of plastic, have certain imperfec- tions in them such as bumps, notches, nicks, scratches, edge irregu- larities, et cetera. These imperfections frequently are located on the film plane aperture against which the film lies when it 1s exposed. As a result of the contact between the film plane aperture and the film, some of these imperfections may be 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 cus- tomers 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 photo- ‘graphic image. These scratches may coincide with the particular pat- tern 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 in the case of CE 750, Oswald’s Imperial Reflex camera, test photo- graphs were made with it and then intentionally underexposed in ‘development to show the frame edge markings better. (No special de- velopment method was necessary to bring out the camera scratch mark pattern.) (See fig. IV-26, JFK exhibit No. F-190). Each time - film was run through the camera, the camera signature created by the frame edge markings and scratch marks was found to be the Same. (765) 42-370 0 - 79 - ll 156 Figure IV-26.—Test photograph exposed in Oswald Imperial Reflex camera | (CE-750). 157 | Ficure IV-29.—Frame edge markings and camera scratch marks on the de Mohrenschildt print of CE-133-—A. |e ee ee Ne ee NT Oa photograph exposed in another Imperial Reflex camera. Ficure IV-27.—Test Miscicsrissaea as ihe Bete mstr Figure 1V-28.—Frame edge markings and camera scratch marks on negative of CE-133-B (CE-749). 160 markings and Fiaure IV-30.—Oswald family photograph with same frame edge camera scratch marks as others exposed in CE-750. (392) The next step was to verify that this frame edge mark pat- tern 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 Kastman Kodak House in Rochester, N.Y. In each case, the camera signatures were markedly different. (166) The comparison thus con- firmed that CE-750 had unique frame edge markings and scratch marks. (See fig. 1V-27, JFK exhibit F—191.) (167) 161 (393) Because only the 133-B negative (CE~-749) and the uncropped 133-A de Mohrenschildt print contained a full image area show- ing 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 corre- sponded with the test photography. (See fig. IV-28, JFK exhibit F-188.) These identifiers were also present in the 133—-A de Mohren- schildt 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. [V—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 origi- nal negative or first-generation prints when these materials were vis- ually inspected using magnifying and microscopic equipment, varying density exposures, and digital image processing. (177) *In regard to the allegation that this camera had been used only to take the incriminating backyard pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald, the panel examined all of the photographic material in the National Archives that was listed as having been taken from the effects of Lee and Marina Oswald during the execution of post- assassination searches by the Dallas Police Department. Most of these were _family-type snapshots, including scenes of an older child and baby in a crib, ' Marina Oswald playing with a child, and Lee Oswald holding an infant. The frame _edge markings appearing on the negatives to these photographs and the camera ) scratch marks appearing directly on the pictures were studied and found to be ) entirely consistent with both the original test materials and the Oswald backyard pictures which were exposed in the Oswald Imperial Reflex camera. For example, figure IV-30 (JFK exhibit F-189) is a photograph which has been identified by ) Marina Oswald Porter as depicting one of the two children that she had by Lee Harvey Oswald. (170) The negative of figure IV-30 was found to contain the same | camera identifiers and scratches as the other first generation prints and original negative made in the Oswald camera. It is, therefore, apparent that this photo- graph was also taken by Oswald’s Imperial Reflex camera. 162 iai alpinaa analysis of CE 133-B utilizing digital image Ficure IV-31.—Grain structure processing. the backyard (397) As noted earlier, photographic images such asgrains of silver pictures are compo sed of very small, irregu lar shaped a uniformly suspended in a gelatin layer. On a given photograph, of such grains. exposed area has a genera lly unifo rm distri bution the grain distri bution may be In contrast, on composited photographs, exami ned the noticeably different. When the panel micros copica lly ard pictures, area above and below the horizontal chin cleft in the backy fig. B-16, no difference in grain structure could be found. (172) (See JFK exhibit F-197.) at the (398) The 133-B negative (CE 749) was digitally processed Processing Aerospace Corp. and the University of California Image Institute using several different image-processing techniques. This (See rocess confirmed that the grain distribution was uniform. (173) y g. TV-31, JFK exhibit 197.) Under very carefully adjusted displa ve did conditions, the scanne d image of the Oswal d backy ard negati ed, exhibit irregular, very fine lines in the chin area. The lines appear , however, only with the Aerosp ace gradi ent-e nhanc ement 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). 163 (399) Although the cause of these lines has not been definitely estab- lished, 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 tech- nique 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 observa- ion of very noticeable stains in the neck and ear area, as discussed below.* These marks are found in the work of photographers who pay Sy attention to the washing and drying steps in the processing of film; (404) (3) Changes in emulsion temperature during processing can cause silver grains in the emulsion to clump together in fine linear patterns, an 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 phe- nomenon is not surprising because copy prints often have higher con- rasts than originals. If an object or an original photograph of the »bject has a rather diffuse band that is dark at the center but becomes orogressively 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 nay not be able to depict the entire tone range of the original object vr photograph. In that case, a range of lighter tones will all appear is a single light tone and a range of darker tones will all appear as one lark tone. It is in this way that a broad smooth tone scale becomes a sharp transition from dark to light. This apparently happened in opies of the Oswald photographs, causing the shadow across the chin 0 appear to be a sharp line. Accordingly, no probative value can be ittributed to such materials. *See pars. 406-407 infra. 164 a Fiaure 1V-32.—Water spot analysis of 1383—A Stovall. (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 pic-_ ture had been pasted together, the image of the line would be composed _ of photographic silver grains. Here, however, the line was actually finer than 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 of line as the edge of a water spot. (See fig. [V-32, JFK exhibit F-196.) (407) When 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 configura- tions 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 138-C. 5S Saeeai 165 og 8 [oFrn S 2 = Sg tdq ro)e q SSSa & oOo Qya) a Cd = omc x a% Ee So Zs va ro) we In. dentat 10n. Peet 3 srmeneani ae : ees % = = esas apoele + Ficure IV-33.—Oswald photographs depicting chin characteristics. 167 (409) The chin area of the backyard pictures has also generated con- troversy 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 an- other man. (410) y | Le 4 > ga © ey, Figure 1V-—36.—Third backyard picture pose “133-C.” (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 & 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° east of forth. The shadows in the photographs indicate that the Sun was m370 0 - 79 - 12 172 Since this would place the behind and to the right of the camera.rnoon, and the Sun was going Gun in the southwestern sky, it was afte down. be used as a visual reference— between the lower two shadows that may the knot on 183-C, highest ; to point. The shadows are lowest relative 133A , and in an inte rmed iate posit ion on CE 133-B. The Sun on CE back yard pictures to move position would cause the shad ows in the Therefore, since the n time. upward on the post with the passage of taken first, followed by shadows were moving upwa rd, 13838- C was 8, IV-2 0, and TV-36.) CE 133-B, and then CE 133-A. (See figs. [V-1 ogra phs cannot be. (The possibility of additional inte rven ing phot discounted.) ciably during the (421) The photographic technique improved appre and the subject camer a was not held level sequence. For 1338-C, the as the shutter re- was not centered. The camera was rotated slightlyfairly sharp in the lease was pressed. This cause d the detail to be to the axis of vicinity of the bush shown at the right, corresponding area such as in the rotation, while there is rotational blur elsewhere, 133-B , the camer a was held level and steady, but of the steps. In CE , th 133-A the subject’s feet were not in the field of view. For CE t was level and steady , and the subjec camera was held reasonably well center ed. (c) Evidence of retouching origina (422) Each of the backyard pictures, as well as the only ing, negative, was examined microscopically for evidence of retouchgivel No such evidence could be detected. Particular attention was alleged to the area to Oswald’s left in CE 133-B, where it has been 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 ap- parent indentation is a shadow, most likely of a leaf or leaves. The straight edge of the post is still visible in this shaded area. Th straight edge was detected and indicated by a computer programe to seck such edges. (See fig. IV-37, JFK exhibit F-198.) (182) 3URE IV-37.—Edge analysis of CE 133-B utiliz ing digital image process ing. 174 . and 133-C, show that the (424) The other two pictures, CE 183—A behi nd it. The shadow is wide post casts a shadow on the whit e surfa ce ld’s neck and post. Conse- — enough to fill the image area between Oswa the post is the shadow of the left of quently, since the darker area to ng on the white post itself the post on a white surface, a shadow falli nd and could be mistaken as_ would be similar in tone to the back grou shadow on the post. art of the background rather than as a a crooked linear image of (425) Finally, careful inspection detec ts ne cel clothesline in this picture. — what appears to be a thin branch or a wire ugh the area in question thro The image of this line runs continuously is unlikely that a retoucher between Oswald’s neck and the post. It as this wire would fail who would faithfully preserve detail as fine to follow the straight edge on the post. (183) nt body proportions (d) Oswald’s identical heads and inconsiste d’s head appears to be (426) Allegations have been made that Oswal res examined by the absolutely identical in each of the backy ard pictu of a single head being Warren Commission and that this is evidence (184) Further support used for the compositing of CE 133-A and B. en Commission critics for this argument has been advanced ‘by Warr res Oswald’s head. 1s who have maintained that in each of the pictu varies consid- the same size, even though the length of his body erably. (185) ’s head 1s (427) ‘There is no support for the statement that Oswald the photo- identical in each of the backyard picture s. If anythi ng, For example, graphs showed a marked variation in facial expression. d is smiling, whereas in CE 133-B he appears to in CE 133-A Oswal be frowning. (See figs. [V-18 and IV-20.) ing the (428) The panel was aware that various techniques involv demon- use of transparency overlay s have been used in an effort to strate that the three different heads are really one. (186) Whenare soft- the edged images such as pictures of the spherical human head for comparison subject of analysis, the absence of a sharp demarcation precludes such methods from serving as an accurate basis for making of comparisons. Even so, when the transparency overlay method analysis was undertaken by the committee’s contractors, the differ- ences in the shape and size of Oswald’s head became readily apparent. (187) | ; (429) The argume nt 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. (788) Second, even when the tilt fac- tor 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 J 7 *For Oswald head length measurements take n from CE 133-A and B, see table Comparison of Oswald Photographs,” par. 732, infra. 175 he rest of the body, which tends to be affected more by variations n posture. (See fig. [V-38.) 430) When the panel reviewed previous studies analyzing the rela- ive proportions of Oswald’s body length to the length of the rifle epicted in the pictures, (789) it became apparent that these analyses iad also failed to consider variations in posture and effect of tilt on he apparent length of a photographed image. Moreover, variations in Jswald’s posture as depicted in these pictures make such an analysis 1eaning less. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT WASHINGTON. BD. C., 20001 {GURE IV-—38.—Effect of postural and facial expression variations on statural and facial measurements taken from photographs. (e) The identical backgrounds 431) The allegation has been made that the backgrounds in these ictures are identical and that three differently posed subjects had een superimposed on copies of one background picture. (190) The roponent of this theory, however, had never measured the distance etween any relevant reference points in these pictures to determine vhether there had been camera movement between the taking of each hotograph. (797) Had this been attempted, the analysis would have 2vealed both horizontal and vertical movement between pictures. 432) The panel determined that there had been horizontal camera ovement. It measured the difference in alinement between pictures f particular foreground and background objects. For example, the Tominent post in the foreground of each picture has a picket fence n both sides of it. The term “a” was designated as the distance from 176 nd the left edge of the image of the post to the left edge of the left-ha edge picket at the end of the fence, “b” as the distanc e from the right of the image of the post to the right edge of the image of the right- of hand picket. If the camera had moved hetween exposures, the ratio “b” to “a” should differ betwee n viewpoi nts in differe nt pictures . (433) This ratio was measured at three different heights on corre- sponding 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 back- grounds 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 ex- posures, 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 posi- tioned 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 photo- graphs 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 ques- tion 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 con- spirator 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 rein- force 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 (183A—DeM). (192) Aside from the obvious *See addendum A, pars, 440-445 » infra , for horizontal and Moers vertical parallax measurements. 177 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 Oswald’s knowledge would theoret- ically have been possible, it is regarded as unlikely. Moreover, a funda- Hen talquestion is whether a sophisticated conspirator would expose aimself to unnecessary risks of detection by making three fake photo- zraphs, 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 1s she obvious improvement in quality as the sequence of photographs orogressed—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 could 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 drug- store or camera store photofinisher’s laboratory. It is unlikely that 2 sophisticated conspirator would have given the end product of his doctoring efforts to a drugstore for printing. Malcolm Thomson, the British forensic photography expert who publicly questioned the au- henticity of the backyard picture, was shown a preliminary summary »f the panel’s report and asked to comment. He was also offered an op- sortunity 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, how- aver, 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 photo- aph. (193) The photographic analyst with the Canadian Department of De- fense who had stated that there was evidence of fakery in these photo- yraphs was also contacted by the committee. He indicated that he had oerformed no scientific tests on the photographs and had spent less shan an hour examining the “very poor copies” that were submitted 0 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 133-B were measured. This was done by measuring the difference in alinement between par- icular objects in the foreground and background. The post, promi- nent in the foreground of each picture, has a picket fence behind it * Parallax is “[t]he apparent shift in relative position (or shape) of an object hen it is viewed from different positions.” Tl. Stroebel and H. N. Todd, Diction- Iry of Contemporary Photography (1974). 178 clearly de- and extending to both sides. The post and fence provided measure- lineated and easily identif iable corres pondin g points for horizon tal paralla x) of the camera ment of horizontal movement (i.e., lower between exposur es. A horizon tal part of the fence and the backgr ound provid ed points edge of the screen of a screen door in the for measurement of the vertical parallax. (441) Horizontal parallax was measured at three different heights the on the picket fence: the lower level was just above the top edge of horizon tal member of the gate; the middle level was in line lower the with the lower edge of the middle horizontal member of the gate; upper level was in line with the lower edge of the top horizon tal mem- ber 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 dis- tance “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 de- lineated, 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: ee ee a equals b equals b/a equals mm mm Lower level: Pac ~ aha dea at Ae ARE SS ACE ee eee ee C0 “lise Seppe ar ES artPres ee le ao 9.5 1.58 1.32/1.58=0.84 ASIA ge ee ee, Oe wee ee a ae td eee 6.5 9.3 1.43 cbse ee PSE Dy ger ye od ES Be ser oe 6.4 10.0 1.56 1. 43/1.56=0.92 TERT tae: Sop oe Oe Be ah ca kh) RY a Le 7.0 22.7 3.24 CTs Roe a SE Be eed te Speers — ea 5.9 23.6 4.00 3.24/4.00=0. 81 (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 shad- ow 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, asf 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 dis- tance 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 consti- 179 -ute the gate at the level of the lower edge of the top horizontal mem- ser. The results are as follows: 133A : gate bolt to screen=30.4 mm, scaling dist. =15.5 mm 30.4/15.5=1.96 133B : gate bolt to screen=32.1 mm, scaling dist.=15.2 mm 32.1/15.2=2.11 (444) Since less background appeared above the gate bolt on 133A chan on 133B, the camera was moved slightly downward between these ‘wo exposures. Less certainty can be attached to this determination shan to the determination of horizontal parallax for two reasons. Only me. rather than three determinations, was made. Second, in the hori- zontal case, the determination was made more sensitive to parallax decause, 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 verti- cal parallax. Nevertheless, there is additional evidence of vertical parallax. Between the first and second pickets from the left in the gate, just below the bottom edge of the upper horizontal member, a small black rectangle appears. It appears more elongated in the verti- ‘al direction on CE 1383—A, as one would expect if the camera were moved down between exposures, exposing more of the dark area in the oackground. ADDENDUM B Report To THE HovusE SELECT CoMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS U.S. Conaress—Hovusrt or 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 nd 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 ‘elated to claims made by various persons in the mass media that fak- ‘ry 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 neach illustration caption is the same as the number of the correspond- hg question. Three illustrations are also included as part of this intro- luction. Figure RIT 0-1 serves to identify the three different views of Jswald and the only negative that has been located. Figures RIT 0-2 ind 0-3 are enlargements of two of the views which the reader may ind useful for reference purposes. A glossary is included as an appen- ix for readers who are unfamiliar with any of the photographic rms used in this report. ~ yyeaoys Mey 1PA0}S p tel jiyosuia you ap "tel (ouyn)soop “EEL © YW-€OT. “eel a9 “anes : eve : col ‘el LON 3ALLVYS3N 0343A0934 ¥-eel FicuRE RIT 0-1.—Identification of the three different views of Oswald in a back- yard and the only negative recovered. Figure RIT 0-3.—An enlarged copy print of original print CE-133A. 182 BACKYARD PHOTOGRAPHS—QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES OSWALD (447) 1. Was the negative of Oswald exposed in the Oswald cam- era? (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 size film.) (448) When negatives that were exposed in the Oswald camera by the undersigned were compared with the negative of Oswald, similari- ties 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 cen- ter 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 alining pairs of edge markings, measuring the displace- ment at fixed intervals and calculating the standard deviation. Care- ful examination of a roll of film we exposed in the Oswald camera re- vealed that while the distinctive marks appeared consistently on each frame of film, the straightness of the lines varied considerably—ap- parently 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 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 in- significant. (1) When one edge of the two images is alined, 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 un- common 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 durin processing and drying is different in the direction of the paper grain as opposed to across the paper grain. The difference in proportions 1 consistent with expectations if the paper grain were oriented verticall on one print and horizontally on the other. (453) Figure RIT 2-2 shows a comparison between ‘a print of an un identified man on a roof made from a negative exposed in the Oswal camera by the FBI (outside edge) and a print of Oswald made fro Archives negative CE-749 by the FBT. The similarities of the mark ings indicate that both were made with the Oswald camera. Figu 183 RIT 2-3 shows a comparison between film exposed in the Oswald vamera at RIT (outside edge) and the Archives negative of Oswald, JE-749, Again, the distinctive markings are in close agreement indi- sating both negatives were made in the same camera. 454) 3. Are the edge markings produced by the Oswald camera mique or are they similar to markings produced by other samples of he same brand of camera? 455) When two other samples of Imperial Reflex duo lens cam- ras, obtained from the International Museum of Photography at the xeorge Eastman House (IMP-GEH), were compared with the Os- vald camera, it was found that all of the bodies were produced by in- ection molding of plastic. This produced three circular indentations m each side of the film aperture that tended to distort the otherwise ssentially straight edge. The details of the distortions in these areas, Owever, were distinctively different on the three cameras. These ifferences in shape can be seen by examining the images through a ow power (5-10X) magnifier. The most distinctive differences, how- ver, are the two projections, one on each side, near the bottom of the Iswald camera image which are missing on the two IMP-GEH ameras. Figure RIT 3-1 shows a comparison between one of the MP-GEH cameras (inside edge) and a negative exposed in the Os- ald camera at RIT. i 456) 4. Does the image sharpness at the center and edges of the egative of Oswald (CE-749) appear to be consistent with that of ther negatives made with the Oswald camera? 457) Yes. Photographs taken with the Oswald camera by the ndersigned revealed strong curvature of field, which accounts for auch of the falloff in sharpness toward the edges. Photographs made nth the two IMP-GEH Imperial Reflex duo lens cameras also re- ealed strong curvature of field. These cameras have no focusing ad- istment and no aperture adjustment to control depth of field. With arvature of field the camera focuses on nearer objects at the edges f the picture than in the center. At the distance Oswald was vanding from the camera, he appears sharper than objects near the dges at approximately the same distance. If the camera had been i1oved somewhat closer to Oswald, however, curvature of field would use him to appear less sharp than objects at the edges which were , the same distance. Thus, the relative sharpness at the center and ges of photographs made with these cameras varies with the object istance. In figure RIT 4-1, the curved plane of sharp focus in ob- *ct space is behind the wall in the center causing unsharpness in this ea, is at the wall in a circular area midway between the center and de edges producing a sharp image, and is in front of the wall at the ges again causing unsharpness. 184 on a print made by the FBI fro Fiaure RIT 2-1.—Comparison of edge markings negativ e CE-749 (outside edge of black line) and a print made fro Archives the same negativ e at RIT (inside edge). ‘IGURE RIT 2-2.—Comparison of edge markings on a print made by the FBI from -anegative exposed in the Oswald camera by the FBI (outside edge) and a print of Oswald made from Archives negative CE-749 by the FBI (inside edge). “a 186 on a negative exposed in the Ficure RIT 2-3.—Comparison of edge markings Oswald camera at RIT (outside edge) and the Archives negative of Oswald, CE-749, (inside edge). 187 FicurE RIT 3-1.—Comparison of edge markings on a negative exposed in an Imperial Reflex duo lens camera owned by the International Museum of Photography at the George Eastman House (inside edge) and a negative exposed in the Oswald camera at RIT (outside edge). m2=370 0 - 79 - 13 188 6 8 rae’ } = otew womens Hiss m= ; si) = ee is= woe rs=u Figure RIT 4-1.—Photograph made in the Oswald camera at RIT illustrating | curvature of field of the camera lens. The camera is focused behind the wall | in the center and in front of the wall at the edges. The sharpest focus at the wall is in a circular area midway between the center and the edges. (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 re- vealed 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 alined, 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? 189 (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 pro- duced 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 simi- lar 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 levated 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. fIGURE RIT 5-1A.—Print made from the negative of Oswald (CE-749) for Scratch comparison with a negative exposed in the Oswald camera at RIT. Four prominent scratches were found to be in the same locations on both prints. Ficure RIT 5-1B.—Print made from a negative exposed in the Oswald camera at RIT, at the same scale of reproduction as the accompanying print made from the negative of Oswald. i } } Fieure RIT 6-1A.—Print made from a negative exposed in the first of two Imperial Reflex duo lens cameras owned by IMP-GEH. This camera had a badly warped back. The scratches are in different locations than those on prints made from negatives exposed in the Oswald camera. 192 FicurE RIT 6-1B.—Print made from a negative exposed in the second IMP- GEH camera. Only faint, transient scratches were produced by this camera. (462) 7. Can the scratches on the negative of Oswald be enhanced 4 (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 back- ground 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 com- posite 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 ’ 193 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 sould be seen that the scratches were actually on the surface of the negative of Oswald, they simply confirm these marks were caused oy the camera and, as such, that the negative was indeed exposed in the Oswald camera. None of these scratch marks were suggestive of compositing. Similarly, the scratch marks on the prints were caused by che 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 -o take these pictures. (466) 9. Are there any differences in the grain pattern in the areas »f the body, head, and background on the negative of Oswald? (467) No inconsistencies could be detected between the areas men- joned with examination of the original negative through a 30X nagnifier, 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 »f Oswald in the backyard (CE-133A, CE-133B, and CE-1383C) ? (469) The backgrounds are not identical on the three photographs, mut the differences are those to be expected as a result of a change in che position or the angle of the camera with respect to the scene. We ould not detect anything that would suggest the background itself (as distinct from the photographs of the background) had been shanged in any way—as by the addition, removal, or alteration of uny of the parts. Also, we could not detect any evidence of fakery sither 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 nthe scene? (471) The positions of the shadows under the nose, eyebrows, and shin 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 saption on page 191 of JX: The Case for Conspiracy by F. Peter Model and Robert J. Groden, which compared CE 1338—A and 133-B. ‘In the bottom photo [CE 133-B], Oswald’s head is cocked slightly to us left, yet the shadow directly under his nose (see top closeup of CE 138-A) moves—not in relation to the light source but to the angle of is head.” (473) It is true that if the tilt of the head were the only change made etween the two photographs, the nose shadow would point more oward the left side of Oswald’s mouth (on the viewer’s right) in JE 133-B where the head is tilted. However, turning the head from eft to rimht (as distinct from tilting it) also alters the placement of the 10se shadow. The authors understandably did not take this factor into Account because Oswald’s head seems to be facing directly toward the ‘amera on both photographs. In actuality, however, the position of Jswald and/or the camera has changed slightly as evidenced by the 194 ld. If we assume that the hange in the position of the post behind Oswa r's left for CE 133-B, nce to the viewe pare, was ee a short dista to his right in order to be facing Oswald would have to turn his head shad ow back toward the original the camera and this would move the the camera to the left or position shown in CE 133A . Also, movi ng woul d produce the observed moving Oswald to the viewer's right Oswald’s head. change in the relative positions of the post and Ficure RIT 9-1A.—Enlarged print on normal-contrast photographic paper from the negative of Oswald (CE-749), used to determine if there are any differences in the grain pattern in the areas of the body, head, and background. No incon- sistencies were detected. 195 RIS Bert. SES oy FIGURE RIT 9-1B.—Enlarged transparency on high-contrast photographic film for grain pa ttern check. No inconsis i ten cies were detected. (The or igina 1 transpar- ency provides the best deta il when vy iewe d by transm itted light -) 1. Head vertical. Shadow points toward 2. Head tilted. Shadow points toward eenter of mouth. left side of mouth. FieurE RIT 11.—Four photographs made to demonstrate that the change in the position of the nose shadow produced by tilting the head can be nullified by ro- tating the head as an explanation for the similarity in the positions of Oswald’s nose shadow in views CE-133A and CE-133B. 3. Head tilted and rotated. Shadow 4. Moving camera to left restores full points toward center of mouth, but front view. Shadow points toward head is not facing camera. center of mouth with head tilted. (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. 197 Figure RIT 11-2. Tilting the head to the viewer’s right by placing a pencil under the opposite side causes the nose shadow to move notice- ably toward the left side of the manikin’s mouth. Figure RIT 11-8. 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 com- parison 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 830X 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 trans- planted (fig. RIT 12-1). For comparison purposes we made enlarge- ments at about the same scale from copy negatives of prints CE-133A, CE-133B, and CE-138C (fig. RIT 12-2). The enlargement of the head from CE-188C 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. 198 atest enatannes eres Tent e FSi Serene : See : *, te RR The world’s first chin transp head from CE-1 3 3A . , the Fieu RE RIT 12-1.—Photograph ic co py of the reproduct ion of print of Oswald (C E4 —1 33 A) in the book “JFK The Case for Consp iracy ” in which the authors claim the chin has been tr ansplanted. 199 201 Figure RIT 12-2.—Enlarged copies of the three views of Oswald for comparison with the preceding illustration. Above is CE-133A. (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 il- lustration. Such spots could be caused by any of various natural fac- tors, 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 | re, and a slight change in the angle of the head with respect to the ‘Sun. 202 . do not conform to a_ (478) In any event, the dark spots on our print ntional procedures smooth line which would be the effect with the conve also be seen on the fore-— used in making composite images. A line can photo graph (CE- 133A ) which does not appear in head of this re that appears in| CE_133B nor in the book illustration . The pictu with high- contr ast film or paper , an appropriate — the book was made ading effect here procedure for some purposes but it produ ces a misle detail s and elimi nates others . Observe that in that it exaggerates some the nose, which sides of the laugh lines running down and out from the l contra st print, have disappeared in are plainly visible on our norma no fakery asso- ration . We are convi nced that there is the book illust ejated with the spots on the chin. st faking? (479) 13. Are there any pictorial inconsistencies that sugge t to light- (480) Careful examination of the photo graph s with respec y, and con- ing, perspective, sharpness, distortion, grain pattern, densit les of evide nce of fakery trast, revealed no evidence of fakery. Examp ing would be shado ws in the wrong posit ion in re- concerning the light w, lation to the position of the Sun and the object casting the shado spond in shape to that expec ted when shad- shadows that do not corre r as ows are projected onto another surface, shadows that do not appear as sharp as expected with direct sunlig ht, shado ws that do not appea en dark as expected with the approximately 1:8 lighting ratio betwe s obtai ned in, sunli ght on a the shadow and highlight sides of object clear day, and shado ws that do not respo nd to nearb y reflec ting sur-. s faces. No such discrepancies are seen in any of the three photograph of Oswald. The darkn ess, shape, sharp ness, and place ment of the shad- ows 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 eround moves appropriately as he 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 of the figure in the picture and the divergence of the vertical subject lines toward the top of the picture. (482) Composite photographs made using a pasteup or montage technique can usually be detected as such unless the component part are made under identical conditions and with great skill. Clues tha commonly reveal fakery are mismatches of the density, contrast, sharp ness, graininess, perspective, and lighting, and imperfect blending 0 the edges between the parts. No such clues can be found in these photo oraphs. Furthermore, there is no disruption of the grain pattern acros the boundary between the head and the body or between the head an the background so that any-composite photograph involving the hea would require using large original negatives and prints and then copy ing the composite image with the Oswald camera. This possibility ‘is discussed in the response to question 22, but nothing in the negative 0 the three prints of Oswald was detected that appears inconsistent 0 suggests fakery. (483) Additional questions related to statements by Mr. Malcol Thompson in a BBC film and a manuscript identified as “Panorama Kennedy, Project number 5348/5506” that is included in the appendix 203 484) 14. Does the apparent bulge in the left edge of the post to the aight of Oswald’s head appear to be due to retouching or other altera- ion of the i unage in photograph number CE-133B ? 485) What could be perceived as an indentation in the post in CE- 33B is believed by the undersigned to be an illusion resulting from he location of a shadow of a branch or leaf along the left edge of the »ost. It follows that since the darker area to the left of the post is a hadow of the post. on a white surface, a shadow falling on the white ost would be similar in tone and could be seen as part of the back- ‘round rather than as a shadow on the post. The shadows falling along he right edge of the post create a slight illusion that the right ‘edge iis iot entirely “straight either, even though the background to the right ‘f the post is lighter iin tone. 486) Careful examination of this area on enlarged prints reveals a narrow object, that could be either a wire or a bush branch, running rom the edge of the building on the right, in front of the post, across he area in question, and continuing thr ough the shadow area between he neck and the post (fig. RIT Pes “Anyone skillful enough to etouch the area between the neck and the post, as claimed by Mr. “hompson, and include the just-detectable wire or branch, would have 0 difficulty in producing a straight line on the post. IcurRE RIT 14-1A.—Enlargement of a section of view CE-133B which shows What appears to be a wire or branch running through the shadow area to the right of Oswald’s neck which Mr. Thompson claimed had been added to the photograph, producing an irregularity in the left edge of the post. M2-370 0 - 79 - 14 204: by studying [These overlaying transparencies can only be analyzed | been retaine d in com- them in a viewer. For this reason, they have mittee files.| high-contrast film for check of Fiaure RIT 14-1B.— Enlarged transparency on § line running through shadow area to the right of Oswald’s neck. (The original by transmitted light. ) transparency provides the best detail when viewed (487) 15. Are the backgr = ounds and shadows identical on any of j there- the three different views (CE-133A, CE-133B, and CE-133C), figures have been superi mposed on differ- by suggesting that different ent prints of a single background photograph ? a photo- (488) The speculation is either that someone started with rd with no figure and added the three figures from graph of a backya other photographs, or that Oswald’s head was added to three photo- are graphs of someone else standing in the backyard. The backgrounds added not identical, thereby ruling out the possibility that figures were nces to three prints of a single photograph of the backyard. The differe (the posts, include changes in the convergence of vertical subject lines of | the boards in the fence, and the buildin g on the right) with changes in the area of the backgr ound include d in the three camera tilt, changes s views, and slight changes in the positions of shadows of some branche and leaves. (489) 16. Is there evidence that part of the background could have | a figure been moved photographically to fill a gap created by adding ina different pose to a background photograph ¢ ae the | (490) Nosuch evidence can be detected. Since the figure moved to viewer's left betwee n views CE-133 B and CE-133 A, 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 firures had been added as suggested. Even if it is assumed that photo- e eraphs of Oswald’s head have been added to photographs of someon else’s body, the necessa ry retouch ing around the edges would be diffi- cult to conceal from detection with high magnification. (491) 17. Is there evidence that the shadows have been touched in?f f No. The shadows appear normal in shape, location, sharpness, and contrast. It would be especiall y 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 paint- ings that appear photographic. There is no evidence, however, that this} was done in this case. 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 byf diffuse illumination from the sky and surroundings rather than byj the Sun. Therefore, the sharpness and position of the detailed shadows within the larger shadow area must be changed in sharpness and posi-f tion. For example, there is a ridge at the top of the white wall behinc Oswald that casts a shadow on the wall beneath it. Where the Su 205 \its the ridge the shadow is sharp and contrasty. Where the ridge is n the shadow of the post, the shadow has a less sharp edge and the ontrast with the adjacent area is lower. A similar situation exists vhere Oswald’s shadow falls on what appears to be a paper on the ‘round near the fence. The soft shadows on the paper within the head shadow on view CE-133B appear as would be appropriate if illumi- iated with diffuse light from the fence and sky. 493) 18. Is the size or position of the shadow of the gun in Os- vald’s right hand (view CE-133B) inconsistent with the position fthe gun? 494) If the gun were held vertically with the butt on the hip, we vould expect the shadow to be oriented in the same direction as the hadows of the legs. However, the barrel of the gun is tilted toward he 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- lockwise direction. The positions of the gun and the shadow are herefore compatible. 495) 19. Is there evidence that Oswald’s left arm and hand have »veen stuck on to another photograph in a physiologically inconsistent aanner (view CE-133B) ? 496) It is possible to experience an optical illusion whereby the ‘mall wedge of the bare upper arm that is visible between the bottom dge of the dark sleeve and the lower arm appears to be part of a hori- sontal limb attached to the rib cage. This is an illusion not unlike he illusion in view CE-133A that the post is sitting on or growing vut of Oswald’s head. It is just as easy to see the small wedge of the yare upper arm as being part of a vertical limb that is mostly enclosed n 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 nlewer’s right (view CE-133B) too wide to be filled by a shadow of he post, thereby indicating retouching ? -498) The ratio of the shadow width to the post width was calcu- ated for view CE-133A, where both are clearly visible, and was found 0 be 1:1.07. Applying the same ratio to an enlarged print of view JE-133B, where the post is 24 millimeters wide, the calculated width bf the partly concealed shadow is 22.4 millimeters. The measured listance between the neck and the post is 22 millimeters if the appar- nt indentation is included, and only 20 millimeters to the position of straight left post edge. Therefore, the distance between the neck ‘ind 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 photo- “raph? /500) One method of detecting differences between two photographs 8 to place them in a stereoscope so that the left eye sees one photo- “raph and the right eye sees the other. If the two photographs are ‘dentical, the two images will fuse and the viewer will perceive a ‘ingle image. If the photographs are not identical, the areas of lisparity will not fuse and the viewer will perceive two separate mages. When the three views of Oswald were viewed two at a time na stereoscope, it became apparent that no two of the images were ‘dentical. 206 strate that the (501) The procedure used in the CBC film to demon cal was to heads on two of the photographs of Oswal d were identi ed monoc hrome color transp arenci es havin g dif- superimpose enlarg the trans- to believ e that ferent colors. The viewer was thereby led demon stra- parencies registered exactl y. In an effort to duplic ate this the three tion, we made closeup copy negatives of the head areas in nega- prints identified as CE-133A, CE-13 3B, and CE-13 3C. These enlarg ed to 8 x 10 inches to produ ce diapos itive image s on tives were and normal-contrast film and also on high-c ontras t film. Green magenta positi ve image s were then produ ced by contac t printi ng. (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 the 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 dis- parity in the background and under the head (fig. RIT 21-1). [These overlaying transparencies can only be analyzed by studying them in a viewer. For this reason, they have been retained in com- mittee files.| FIGURE RIT 21-1A.—Superimposed normal-contrast green and magenta trans- parencies of pairs of the three views of Oswald reveal obvious color differences only in the large areas of disparity in the background and under the head. This is the procedure used in a CBC film to demonstrate that the heads on the photographs are identical. Above, CE-133A and i CH-133B. (The original i trans- parencies should be viewed by transmi ational Archives ) My smitted light. They are onthefile in FievurRE RIT 21-1B.—CE-133B and CE-138C. FicuRE RIT 21-1C.—CE-133A and CE-133C. FicurE RIT 21-1D.—Both the green and the magenta transparencies were made from CE-133A to demonstrate th at n o color differences i : background with identical images. are seen even in the (503) Two additional pee procedures were then used in an effort to verl ah nen provide evidence that the heads on the three photographs ae es ieee.ical. For one, positive and negative high-contrast film When iin seer aod together and contact printed onto paper. photo ri NY(CE. and negative images are from the same original figure RIT AS ee a fine-line effect is produced as shown in bined with the ne hen the positive image from CE-133B is com- are represent Fae cmeD. image fromCE-133A, the areas of disparity print is gal Ny piaas broader black areas or as broken lines. This CE-133A and CE_133C. Ra py eeints 21-3. Similar comparisons of RIT 91-4 A and BR’ -183B and CE-138C are shown in figure 207 (504) It should be mentioned here that the head si zes 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 v ertical-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 far ther off the lens axis. This effect is explained in greater detail below. |‘ eee pex ~~ ell a Sur, eA 5ats Stare Ny (8s 333A 646.) ae ‘IGURE RIT 21-2.—Pprint made from su perimposed high-contrast positive and _hegative film images of vi ew CE-133B to demonstrate that a fine-line effect ig ' Produced when the high -contrast images are made from the same original. : | | FicurRE RIT 21-3.—Comparison of CE-133A and CE-133B. The areas of dis- parity are represented either as broader black areas or as broken lines. 209 (o0o $6¢,) C@ /3a2 A a R™. FicuRE RIT 21-4A.— Comparison of CH-133A and CE-1383C. 210 p. \ fs pi. a +o ° .& Bar { |’ . lh Y Gf FiguRE RIT 214B.—Comparison of CE-133B and CE-183C. (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 thetl on the three parencies were made from the posit} 211 e., superimposed) on the magenta image from CE-133A and the wo are opposite in negative-positive polarity (i.e., one is a negative mage and the other is a positive image), the areas of disparity become vident as clear areas and as areas of a darker color produced by the verlap of green and magenta. We believe the differences are dramatic nd clearly indicate that the two heads did not come from a single riginal photograph. This pair of images is shown in figure RIT 1-5. Similar results were obtained when high-contrast color images rom view CE-133C were superimposed on those from views CE-133.A nd CE-133B (fig. RIT 21-6). An additional pair of green and 1agenta transparencies, both made from view CEH-133B, is included 0 show the appearance of identical images in figure RIT 21-7. [These overlaying transparencies can only be analyzed by studying hem in a viewer. For this reason, they have been retained in com- aittee files.] ‘igure RIT 21-5.—When a green negative high-contrast image from CE-133B is Superimposed on a magenta positive high-contrast image from CE-1383A, the areas of disparity become evident as clear areas and as areas of a darker color produced by the overlap of green and magenta. (The original color trans: parencies should be viewed by transmitted light.) ‘igure RIT 21-6A.—Superimposed high-contrast color images from CE-133B and CE-1338C. ‘igure RIT 21-6B.—Superimposed high-contrast color images from CE-133A and CH-133C. igure RIT 21-7._Superimposed high-contrast color images, both from CE-133B, to illustrate the effect obtained with identical original images. 507) Additionally, photographs were made of a manikin head vith an Imperial Deluxe Reflex duo lens camera similar to the Os- vald camera, placing the image of the head in various positions from he center of the negative to the edges. The purpose of this was to ustrate the effect such variations in placement have on the shape of oe image of the head in order to explain the differences in head shapes 1 photographs CE-133A, CE-133B, and CE-133(C, observed when the igh-contrast color transparencies were superimposed. A. black-and- vhite contact print of three negatives (fig. RIT 21-8) shows the nanikin head in the center of the photograph, near the top (tilt- ig the camera down), and near the top left corner (tilting the camera ‘own and aiming it to the right). Placing the image of the head off ne lens axis causes it to be elongated in a direction radiating away rom the center of the photograph. Thus, the head at the top of the Hhotograph is stretched vertically and the head in the corner is }retched diagonally. This change in shape can be seen on the contact frint, but the heads were also enlarged on high-contrast film and mntact color transparencies were made so that direct comparisons ould be made by superimposing green and magenta pairs of the three nages (fig. RIT 21-9). 908) This change in shape is known as the wide-angle effect and it ceurs with all conventional camera lenses including normal, wide- ngle, and telephoto, but it is most obvious with short focal length ‘ide-angle lenses. In addition, pincushion distortion. which is evident 1 the curved reproduction of straight subject lines, and the altered 212 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 pro- portions of the heads in CE-138A, CE-133B, and CE-1338C can be — explained in terms of these effects since the tilt of the camera changed between the photographs, thereby placing the head in different posi- tions. Of the three effects mentioned, the wide-angle effect has the ereatest 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 a two-dimensional head on a photographic poster or print, the use of which has been suggested as a way of faking the photographs of Oswald. Thus, the presence of this effect in the backyard picture 1s 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? 1. Image in center with camera level. Shape of head is normal. 2. Image at top with camera tilted down. Head is elongated vertically. 7 3. Image in corner with camera tilted down and rotated to the right. Head is elongated diagonally, away from the center. [These overlaying transparencies can only be analyzed studying them in a viewer. For this reason, they have been retained in com- mittee files.| FIGURE RIT 21-8.—A contact print of three negatives made with an Imperial Reflex duo lens camera to show the effect of variations of image placement within the picture format on the shape of a head. thie capeae 21-9.— Enlarged high-contrast positive color transparencies of the | iree photographs in the preceding illustration, superimposed to reveal areas neAReRIe (The original transparencies should be viewed by transmitted — 213 IGURE RIT 22—-1A.—An original photographic print that was copied with the Oswald camera to determine if the reproduction (following illustration) would be acceptable as an original photograph. 214 FicurE RIT 22-1B.—A copy photograph made with the Oswald camera that has characteristics of an original photograph including the camera scratch pattern. The left border of the original print shows even though it was not visible in the camera viewfinder; the photograph also reveals exaggerated pincushion distortion due to use of a supplementary lens over the camera lens. (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 dis- tortion, 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 cal- 215 culate 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 gradation 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 photo- graphs 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 be- lieve such a procedure was used to produce the three backyard photo- oraphs of Oswald. ATTACHMENT A GLOSSARY OF PHOTOGRAPHIC TERMS ? Composite image.—A. photograph in which two or more separate images have been combined by any camera, printing, or post-printing technique—for example, camera montage, film stripping, printing montage, and pasteup. Contact printing —To expose photographic paper or other sensi- tized material through a negative or transparency while the two are pressed together for the purpose of making a reproduction that is the same size as the original. Contrast.—The actual (objective) or the perceived (subjective) variation between two or more parts of an object or image with respect to any of various attributes such as luminance or hue. Subjective con- trast is commonly described in general or relative terms such as high contrast or lower-than-normal contrast. Normal-contrast films gen- arally represent luminance differences in the subject with correspond- mg density differences in the negative whereas high-contrast films record most of the subject tones as a uniform high density and a uni- form low density. Copy negative.—A negative produced by photographing a photo- graph as distinct from a negative produced by photographing an orig- nal scene. | Curvature of field.—A lens defect in which the sharpest image of a subject plane assumes the shape of a curved surface rather than con- forming to the flat surface of the photographic film or paper. If a lens with this defect is focused in the centerof the film or paper the image willbe out of focus in the corners, and if it is focused in the corners the image will be out of focus in the center. *The illustrations and some of the definitions are from Dictionary of Con- -emporary Photography, Leslie Stroebel & Hollis N. Todd, Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: “Morgan & Morgan, 1974, with the permission of the authors and the publisher. 216 characteris- Density.—A logarithmic measure of the light-absorbing an inverse (Perce ptuall y, there is tics of an image, filter, et cetera. graph and relationship between density of varlous areas In a photo density 1s perceived lightness, so that a shado w area that has high perceived as having low lightness.) ba objects Depth of field —The range of object distances within which with accepta ble sharpne ss, for exampl e, on a photog raphic are imaged e, print or transparency. Depth of field increases as the object distanc viewing distance, and f-number increase, and as the focal length decreases. , ' Diapositive—(1 ) A transpar ency intended to be viewed or projecte d by transmitted light. (2) A positive image on a transparent or trans- lucent support, used as an intermediate step in forming the final image. For example, a diapositive is made from an original negative to pro- duce one or more duplicate negatives. Dimensional stability.—The ability of film, paper, or other material to remain relatively unchanged in size when subjected to aging, proc- essing, et cetera. Photographic papers may change dimensions by different amounts with the paper grain, and across the paper grain during processing. Diopter—A. measure of lens power equal to the reciprocal of the focal length in meters. Plus and minus signs are used to denote positive and negative lenses, respectively. A +4 lens, for example, is a con- verging (positive) lens with a focal length of 14 meter or 250 mm. To a first approximation, the power of a lens combination is the sum of the powers of the components. | Distortion—A lens condition that causes straight subject lines to bow inward or outward on the image (barrel distortion, pincushion distortion). This optical effect is caused by a variation of magnifica- tion across the field. ea ee am | | | l | | | eS Ceaeeete cee 5 Barrel -Pincushion Distortion Distortion Edge markings——Masking irregularities around the edge of th picture area on film exposed in a camera that correspond to irregu larities in the film aperture in the camera. ' plate, located close to the film a cameraSeren Pies iberait br or a projector, in a delimits opening that the area of illumination 1e plate adjacent to the film aperture in a camera supports the filn in ae exposure of the film beyond the picture format. ler eT oss number, such as f/11, obtained by dividing the foca ens" oF & lens by the effective aperture. The f-number and the shutte speed are two basic exposure controls in cameras. Focal length—The distance from the rear nodal point of a lens t 217 he sharpest image of an object located at a very great distance on he lens axis. With camera lenses of normal design, the focal length $s approximately the distance from the center of the lens to the film plane when the camera is focused on infinity. Gradation.—A. change in tone, texture, et cetera, between adjacent ireas of an object or the corresponding image. Gradation provides the riewer with information concerning the form or depth of the subject, .2., the facial features of a portrait subject as revealed by the ighting. Synonym : Local contrast. Grain.—On black-and-white photographs, subject areas of uniform one, such as blue sky, are composed of randomly distributed particles f silver. At low magnifications and large viewing distances the eye lends the small scale dark and light areas to produce a uniform tone. At high magnifications the nonuniformity can be seen as a clumping f the silver particles. The appearance of this clumping varies with , number of factors including the type of film, the exposure level, nd development. Lens axis—aA line joining the centers of curvature of spherical urfaces and perpendicular to plane surfaces. With camera lenses, the ans axis can be approximated as a straight line perpendicular to the ensboard and through the center of the front surface of the lens. Synonym: Optical axis. optical axis Lensboard.—A. panel that supports the lens on photographic optical quipment. Lensboards are detachable on most view cameras and en- argers to permit the substitution of other lenses. Lighting.—The character or quality of the illumination as seen na subject or in a photograph or a motion picture. Included among ighting variables are placement of the light source and the resulting lacement of highlights and shadows, uniformity of lighting, lighting atio, and shadow sharpness. Lighting ratio.—A. factor obtained by dividing the illuminance on he highlight side of an object by the illuminance on the shadow side. L lighting ratio of 3 to 1 is commonly recommended for studio portrai- te whereas the lighting ratio for an object in direct sunlight is typi- ally 8 to 1. | Magenta—A hue (color) obtained by mixing red light and blue ght, or by removing green from white light. Magnification—A scale of reproduction larger than one. An 8 x 10- ach print made from a 4 x 5-inch negative without cropping would ave a magnification of 2.0, obtained by dividing an image (print) ‘mension by the corresponding object (negative) dimension. In some ontexts magnification refers to the ratio of the image size on the print 0 the size of the object being photographed irrespective of the nage size on the negative. 218 Mask.—A device to protect specific areas of photosensitive materia borde from exposure. The mask on printing easels produces the white e 1 on black-and-white prints and the panel around the film apertur cameras masks the film around the picture . Negative-—A photographic image in which the light subject tone 2 uced are reproduced as dark, and dark subject tones are reprod light. oyegative lens—A single-element lens that is thinner in the cente than at the edges, or any lens that causes entering parallel rays of lig to diverge. Negative lenses do not form real images, but they can k used in combination with positive lenses to form real images, whe the combination will have a longer focal length than that of the pos tive lens alone. Perspective (linear).—The representation of depth in a two-dime sional photograph by the convergence of parallel subject lines or t decrease in image size with increasing object distance. For examp train tracks converge and the distance between the two rails decreas in the photograph as the object distance increases. Pincushion distortion.—An optical effect in which the magnificatia within a subject plane increases with distance from the lens ax¥ causing straight subject lines to be curved in the image. For examp]j the outside vertical edges of a building would curve away from eaq other at the top and bottom of the photograph. (See illustration und “Distortion.”) : Positive-—A photographic image in which the tones are in approx mately the same relationship as in the original, where light subje tones are reproduced as light tones and dark subject tones are ¥ produced as dark tones. Positive lens —A single-element lens that is thicker in the cen than at the edges, or any lens that causes entering parallel rays light to converge. Positive lenses can be used alone or in combinati with positive or negative lenses to form real images. A combination positive lenses will have a shorter focal length than that of any of t individual lenses. _ Projection printing—The use of an optical device containing light source to project images of negatives or transparencies onto seq sitized material for the purpose of making a print which may larger than, smaller than, or the same size as the original. Commo called enlarging. _ Resolution target—A design typically consisting of alternati light and dark lines that systematically vary in width, used to tq the ability of one or more components of a photographic system, s i as a lens, to image detail. Resolution is commonly expressed as li | peeSea wr | etouching.—The technique of modifying a photographic imaj by anya! wnetngds of adding colorants, f fotine oeSe ehind i NARs: 08 DY airbrushing. In portrait retouching of black-and-whj negatives, for example, low density areas representing imperff tions in the skin are darkened to match surrounding areas by addif graphite with a needle-sharp pencil. : ” ev pialet ond yysical imperfections on a surface due to abrasi ‘or example, roll film can be scratched in a camera as it is advang 219 or rewound due to contact with irregularities in the camera film track or pressure plate, or the light trap in the film cassette. Sharpness.—That subjective quality of an image associated with the distinctness of boundaries between adjacent objects. Acutance 1s the objective measure of edge quality that is related to sharpness. For example, a variation of sharpness in photographs is associated with camera focus and depth of field. Supplementary lens—A positive or negative lens that is added to the lens on a camera or other optical device for the purpose of chang- ing the focal length. A positive supplementary lens decreases the focal length and a negative supplementary lens increases the focal length. Positive supplementary lenses are sometimes referred to as closeup lenses since they enable cameras to focus on shorter object distances. . Transparency.—An image (usually positive) intended to be viewed by light that passes through the image and the base by projection or on a transparency viewer, as distinct from reflection prints which are on a more or less opaque base and are viewed by reflected light. Wide-angle effect—A systematic change in shape of images of three-dimensional objects with angular displacement from the lens axis (that is, from the center to the edges of the film), most noticeable in photographs made with short focal length wide-angle lenses, where images of three-dimensional objects near the edges of the field of view ‘appear to be stretched out of shape in directions radiating away from the center of the photograph. The effect is usually not apparent in photographs made with normal focal length lenses viewed at the correct distance because images near the edges are viewed at oblique angles that compress the images in proportion to the stretching that occurred when the images were formed by the camera lens. The image of a spherical object is widened about 10 percent at 25 degrees laterally off the lens axis and about 42 percent at 45 degrees off the lens axis. ATTACHMENT B BritisH BrRoapcAstIne Corp. Lime Grove Studios, London, February 9, 1978. ‘Representative RicHarpsoN PREYER, House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C. Drar ConeressMAN Preyrr: I wanted to send this transcript along to you immediately. We initiated a detailed analysis of the Oswald holding the rifle photos by Detective Superintendent |Malcolm ‘Thompson who ran the Police Forensic Science Laboratory Identifica- tion Bureau for 25 years. He is also an ex-president of the Evidence Photographers International Council and a fellow of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers, the Royal Photographic Society and ‘the Institute of Professional Investigators. In short, he knows what he’s talking about. _ As you will see, he is sure that it is a fake photo—a montage of three ‘separate pictures. Naturally, I'll be using him in our film, but I wanted your committee to have this information directly. 42-370 0 - 79 - 15 220 [’ll be returning to New York on February 20, and we'll be having a, prescreening in Washington sometime thereafter. We'll be in touch with your office to work out a convenient time and place for you and | any committee or staff who might be interested. My best, Davip OSTERLUND. PanoraAMA KENNEDY ROLL 1A Interrogator. Mr. Thompson would these photographs be accept- able as evidence in a British court of law? Mr. Tuomrson. No. I have examined these photographs and have es- tablished without doubt that there is retouching on them and it is a basic principle with a forensic photographer that he would never, never retouch a photograph in any form of litigation. Interrogator. What would happen in a British court of law if photographs like this were produced as evidence in a murder case? Mr. Tuomrson. If they were produced in a murder case then the de- fending counsel without doubt would have an expert examine them and if retouching was found on them then they would not be included in the evidence. IntErRoGATorR. Are you saying that if photographs like this were pro- duced in a British court of law in a case, they would be thrown out? Mr. Tompson. I do. Yes. They would be thrown out. Interrogator. What leads you to feel that? _ Mr. Tuompson. Well primarily the retouching is very very obvious in certain parts of the picture but more in particular in a perpendicular pillar here which should be a straight line. When one comes to a point, the subjects chin, one finds that there is a bulge in a line. Without doubt that shows this area between the head and the pillar has been retouched and the retoucher has just not been careful enough to maintain the re- touching he should which is within the pillar in what should be a shadow area. Now that is photograph B. __In photograph A we do see the pillar as a straight pillar, it is not as if the wood has a flaw at that point there. The flaw is created in photo- eee B due to the fact that the retouching has extended over onto the pillar. Interrogator. I wonder if you could go through the two photographs cae for me what you regard as the discrepancies in those photo- g Mr. Tompson. The backgrounds are very very similar to the point that either the camera was on a tripod when the pictures were taken or we are speaking about a common negative having been used to produce the two backgrounds. They look disimilar, there is a horizontal shift and a vertical shift in the two pictures but that purely and simply, I think, is meant to mislead the viewer. When one measures the pictures, photograph A is enlarged slightly eae than photograph B but even allowing for that, the shadow q faire lneaehigareas of the picture, that is in particular on the stair- eae ¢ Shadows are so exact that there is no doubt in my mind, it ra common negative used to produce the two prints or two suc- 221 cessive negatives with the camera on a tripod and neither camera or tripod moved in any way between the two exposures. There is a discrepancy up in this area here. At this point I can only assume that someone has cut out this area and changed its position slightly, it is fractional but in this picture here we see the horizontal part of the neighboring house with a highlight in this area, whereas in this picture here the horizontal part can be seen far below the section the angle caused by the upright pillar and the step. You can see a frac- tional difference there whereas in this picture the fractional difference does not exist. Again with that if we take a dark triangle here between the roof of the house next door and the skyline then that d - - - angle finishes up level with the shadow of the staircase there and in the other picture the diactoral angle is below the shadow of the staircase. Similarly, the vine passing up through here is in a lower position at that point in that picture than it is in that picture. I then come to the conclusion that part has been raised in photo- graph B and retouching done down here to fill up the small gap created. That is again borne out out by the fact that here in photo- graph A the picture finishes up dark and in photograph B at that point the picture finishes up gray. So much for the background. If we take the body. The body shadows don’t relate to the other shadows in the picture and one can only come to the conclusion that this body has been placed in the background and photographed but all the shadows here are swinging to the left where- as this shadow is slightly to the left but also behind the body is common to both pictures but when one examines the shadow content, one sees the gun at an angle to the body which does not relate to the angle in the shadow. The gun is reaching far more out to the right, more in a horizontal position here in relation to the body shadow than the gun is actually being held by the person. Inrerrocator. So you think that those shadows have actually been touched in. Mr. THompson. They have been touched in. _ Again, there is something peculiar about this hand. The entire hand -and arm is very, very unnatural. It possibly could have been stuck in afterward; but I can’t relate physiologically the position of that arm to the body. _ The butt of the rifle I think is the telltale in this picture here where we see very, very little of the butt actually protruding beyond the trouser line and yet down here having been painted in is a very, very large butt, I say very large in relation to the length of the shadow and We can measure the length of that shadow in relation to the height of the person and measure off the butt of the gun as against the shadow of the butt and that is to me unnatural. _ The head itself, I have seen photographs of Oswald and his chin is not square. He has a rounded chin. Having said that, the subject in this picture has a square chin but again it doesn’t take any stretch of the imagination to appreciate that from the upper lip to the top of the head is Oswald and one can only conclude that Oswald’s head has been stuck on to a chin, not being Oswald’s chin. Then to cover up the montage, retouching has been done both to the right, that is Oswald’s right and Oswald’s left and when we 222 consider this area of retouching here—compare it with what we see in photograph A we have a shadow cast by this wooden pillar. I have measured those and even allowing for the difference and degree of enlargement between photograph A and photograph B the area we see in shadow here is far in excess of what it should be and of course that is the area to which I referred earlier on where the pillar coming down. does not continue in a straight line but has this bulge in it. Inrerrocator. Are there other things about the face itself which would make you suspicious? Mr. Tuompson. Yes, again we have a shadow underneath the nose. In photographs A and B you see Oswald’s face in a different posture and yet the shadow under the nose hasn’t moved or if it has moved it is only fractional compared with the actual movement we see in the face and one comes to the conclusion that it is the same picture used for both faces, possibly in this face here he has got a scowl on his face and there has been retouching done in the chin area which is what would expect if my conclusion is correct, that this face has been added on to the chin. He has a very. very thick lower lip here which is not consistent with Oswald’s lip and again the shadow underneath the lip is a horizontal shadow, that is consistent in both, even allowing for the fact that we have a slight tilt in the head of photograph B as against that in photograph A. In TERROGATOR. Is it easy to make a photo montage like this? Mr. Tuomrson. Yes; it is very, very common in the advertising world, professional photography, advertising photographers do mon- tages all the time because it is the easiest way of obtaining the effect they want as against trying to set up that effect, it might be an poset ple effect to set up, they have got to resort to a photo montage o doit. 801 Take 1 InTERROGATOR. What about the arm? _ Mr. Tuomrson. The arm in photograph B just doesn’t look natural, — in fact it looks as if it has been stuck on the body. Inrrrrocator. How easy is it to make a photo montage like this, how would people go about it? Mr. THompson. It’s not difficult. If one has a background scene, the subject photographed against a white background making it simpler to cut out the subject from the back. Tyrrrrocator. How do you think this photo montage was achieved ? Mr. Tuompson, The montage could be achieved by a photograph of the background and a photograph of a body against a white back- arenes and having been cut away from that white background and then multed as We See it here and then being in possession of a photo- eran of Oswald’s head, merely mounting that. on to the top of the ody, stuck down and touched in such a way that your lines are not going to be too cut and dried between the body and the background an t nen rephotographed on to a negative and then from that nega- i si course producing as many prints as you like and possibly re- photographing the print from the negative in order to soften down toppack g amonnd and that would develop each time the photo graph was 223 InTERROGATOR. [s that very easy to do? Mr. Tuompson. It is not difficult at all, don’t ask me to do it, Tama forensic photographer. The last thing I would do is to retouch or indulge in any form of montage. My duty would be to present to the court what I know about the case and illustrate what I know about it in straightforward photography but there are retouchers in many facets of professional photography, they do resort to photo mon- tages, in particular the advertising profession. InTerROGATOR. Would the investigator agencies in America like the FBI and the CIA have that sort of professional expertise themselves? Mr. THomrson. I would hope they don’t have it because it is not part of their duties as forensic photographers to produce anything in court which has been retouched. InTerRoGATOR. Yes; but regardless of your hopes, I am asking whether you believe that the professional agencies in America have that sort of photographic expertise? Mr. Tuompson. I wouldn’t think they have it but most certainly it _wouldn’t be difficult to get access to it. Every moderate studio in Amer- ica has its retoucher in the same way as the biggest studios in Britain have their retoucher but in America you do have photographic artists, a profession all to itself, and they are spread all throughout the United States, access to one of those persons, its mostly ladies who do it and do an extremely good job in producing from a black and white pic- ture, anything from anything as far as an oil painting from photographs. InTERROGATOR. How quickly could you make a photographic mon- tage like that ? Mr. Tuompson. I would guess and say that you need at least 4 hours to produce it and that is working hard and possibly a team working at it, not just one man but I have no personal experience of how long it takes. IntErROGATOR. Would you be prepared to produce yourself those photographs as evidence in court ? Mr. THomrson. After having examined them definitely not. I couldn’t resort to producing anything in court which was other than just the original print from the original negative, even to the point if there was a flaw in the negative I’d be prepared to leave that in the final enlargement for the court purposes. If I was asked during the trial or the hearing then I could explain away quite simply as it being a flaw in the negative and possibly have the negative there as evidence. There is no need to retouch anything in a forensic photograph and certainly in Britain forensic photographers would just not retouch anything. IntTERROGATOR. Do you believe that those photographs are a fake? Mr. TuHompson. I think they are a fake and possibly the shadow detail and its relation to the static scene and the body are the give- away, plus the fact there is retouching in sufficient salient places to make one appreciate that something peculiar has gone in relation to the head and the body and the areas surrounding it. IntERRoGATOR. Can you describe what your method was in order to try and determine that it was a fake? Mr. THompson. One measures the pictures first to ascertain the de- gree of enlargement, there is no use comparing distances on a picture 224 j } unless you are certain that the two pictures you are comparing are of © the same degree of enlargement. In this case they weren’t of the same degree of enlargement and that created slight difficulty in relating one — subject to another. After having done that a very close examination of the fine detail present in the pictures brought me to my conclusion. IntrerRoGATOR. Was your method to look for discrepancies? Mr. Tuomrson. Exactly, that has been my life’s work looking for the unusual and comparing one thing with another to see similarities or dissimilarities and what in general has been your conclusion in looking at those two photographs. In general I have come to the conclusion that we have a montage of three pictures to make one end product as we see it here today. Interrogator. Does it strike you as strange that the police did not find those photographs, despite an intensive search on the day of the assassination and only found them the next day. Well searches of premises are always difficult things, to carry out one has got to be systematic, there is only one way to carry out a proper search of a scene of crime or any other premises which might be of interest to the police and that is there are two officers doing it and one officer systematically follows round doubling what the other officer has done and in that way then two pairs of eyes should be better than one pair and nothing of importance should be missed. So does it strike you as strange that in their search, after all con- nected with the assassination of a president that they should find such damning evidence the next day? Mr. THompson. It does, it does seem unusual. One would think that the officers involved would be highly experienced officers, would know and have been trained to carry out the search of premises. Inrrrroeator. Is there any possibility in your mind that those two photographs are genuine? Mr. Tuompson. I don’t think there is any possibility, having exam- ined them for a considerable time it is my considered opinion that they are not genuine. Interrogator. Thank you very much. ROLL 2A 802 Take 1 InterrocaTor. After examining these photographs what is your pro- fessional opinion on them? Man. My opinion is those photographs are faked. Inrerrocator. What makes you think that? Man. The amount of retouching that is done and possibly more in particular the relationship between the shadows of the background and the shadows in the front of the body in the picture. Inrerrocator. Would you ever be prepared to produce those photo- graphs in a British court of law. Man. No. I certain] y would never contemplate using pictures which | had been retouched or spotted in any way in a court of law. My task, would be purely and simply to illustrate the evidence I was giving by straightforward photography. Any blemishes in my pictures then most certainly I would leave them in there and finish the enlargements 225 nd be able to explain to the court what exactly had happened, have ne negative in my pocket as a protection if necessary. There is no need ) spot pictures and forensic photographers in this country will just ot resort to any form of retouching of any picture. Interrogator. Is there any possibility in your view that those photo- raphs are genuine? Man. There is no possibility in my view that they are genuine, they ave been retouched and I consider the picture to be the result of a lontage. Interrocator. Thank you. 2. AUTHENTICATION OF THE KENNEDY AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS AND X-RAYS (a) Introduction 512) Authentication of the autopsy photographs allegedly taken of »resident Kennedy was considered essential because of the discrepant escriptions that have been given of the wounds incurred by the Presi- ent. The description of the size and location of the President’s head rounds, for example, by eyewitnesses at Parkland Hospital differed ramatically from the testimony of the autopsy doctors and the ac- ount set forth in the Warren Report. (195) More recently, the panel f medical experts convened by then-Acting Attorney General Ramsey lark described Kennedy’s head entrance wound as approximately 10 entimeters higher than the location reported by the Warren Jommission. (196) Asa result of these discrepancies, it was essential to erify that the autopsy photographs and X-rays did, in fact, depict tennedy, and that these materials had not been altered in any way. (6) Issues 518) 1. Do the postmortem photographs and X-rays in the custody f the National Archives purporting to depict President Kennedy, in act, depict him? 514) 2. Is there any evidence that either President Kennedy’s au- opsy photographs or X-rays have been altered ? (c) Materials examined 515) Twenty-seven original color transparencies and the twenty- ve original black and white negatives were examined. These depicted he subject’s head and upper torso from various positions.* In addi- ion, 8’’ x 10” color and black and white photographic prints generated rom these transparencies were evaluated. 516) The X-ray materials consisted of the following items: a 1. An attempted anteroposterior projection of a skull iden- ed as: 21296 (numbers upside down). U.S. Naval Hospital. NNMC Bethesda, Md. November 22, 1963. *A more detailed description of these photographs is provided in pars. 570-571, 595 infra. 226 ti- on of a skull with the same iden (518) 2. Right lateral projecti ’ fication symbols. skull with the same identifica- _ (519) 3. Left lateral projection of a tion symbols. e fragments of bone unidentified (520). 4. Three radiographs of thre by symbols. Loch (521) 5. An anter opost erior proje ction of a chest with the same identification symbols as Nos. 1-3 above . This radiograph was obtained autopsy. | with the thoracic cage intact, that is, before of a chest with the same (509) 8NG. LAN anteroposterior proje ction ph was obtained after identification as No. 5 above. This radiogra and mediastinal contents the thorax had been opened and the lungs had been removed. (d) Procedures photographs and X- (523) Independent of the panel’s analysis, the who performed the au- rays were reviewed by the three physicians ortem X-rays, topsy, the leader of the X-ray team that took the postm photo graph er who took the autop sy pictur es. These in- and by the ately por- dividuals indicated that the photograph s and X-ray s accur trayed Kennedy’s variou s wound s. (197). s and (594) The panel’s board of consulting forensic anthropologist a forensic ondontologist compar ed the photog raphs and X-rays with premortem photographs and X-rays of Kennedy. Premortem ma- terials were studied for the purpose of discerning unique anatomic features whose presence in the postmortem photographs and X-rays would verify that the individual depicted was, in fact, Kennedy. (525) The photographic materials and X-rays were examined vis- ually by the panel.* This review included both miscroscopic examina- tion and viewing relevant photographs in a stereoscope, a special device that allows pairs of photographs to be viewed in three dimen-_ sions. Because stereoscopy provides an excellent means by which al- tered or doctored photographs can be detected,? primary reliance was placed upon this analytical technique.® (526) Finally, the autopsy X-rays, in addition to being reviewed by the panel, were analyzed for evidence of fakery by a radiologist who had particular expertise in the area of image enhancement. (e) Conclusion (527) 1. The postmortem photographs and X-rays: in the custody . f theet sweaNati tin g to depi ct Ken ned y do, in fact, aeni t Archives purpor “Because the Department of Defense se was v unable to locate the camera ‘ and pene the a en to take these photographs, the panel was unable to engage ib ea te me 3 to the one undertaken with the Oswald backyard pictures ar eat te iP:determine whether a particular camera in issue had been *niin neit eae io The princi ie peenacony that perarhs were the subject of inquiry. is discussed in detail in pars. 75-79. 434-36 supra the-ahe ef ai it x the autopsy photographs and X-days were enhanced throug ts tlh A on re ene processing, the resulting enhanced photographs an Pay ity cara dager ely by the autopsy panel for determining the natur § wounds, They were found to be unnecessary in the analysis to detec possible fakery,y, §since th e original igi materials, w i i of sufficient quality to resolve this issue hen. Viered, Si Porn aa on a 227 (528) 2. There is no evidence that either the Kennedy autopsy photo- graphs or X-rays have been altered. (f) Analysis (529) This section will deal primarily with the panel’s visual ex- amination. Separate reports have been filed setting forth the detailed analysis of the panel’s board of consulting forensic anthropologists and the forensic odontologist. (530) Visual inspection of the autopsy photographs and transpar- encies revealed no evidence of retouching, compositing, or other evi- dence of fakery. Because all of the relevant photographs were studied stereoscopically, it is extremely unlikely that evidence of fakery would have escaped detection. (531) Stereoscopic viewing is made possible when two photographs of a subject are taken from a slightly different position in space (that is, a few centimeter movement of the camera or a similar degree of movement by the subject photographed). This was made possible in the present case because the autopsy photographer, in an apparent effort to insure a good final result, took two or more pictures of each relevant view. (532) Because pairs of stereo pictures may be'seen in three dimen- sions, such photographs add depth to the perception of the photo- graphed scene in much the same way as a pair of human eyes, sep- arated from one another in space, can perceive depth. In viewing stereo pairs of photographs through a stereoscope, one eye views one picture and the other eye views the second picture. As a result, the eyes, coupled with the visual image processes of the brain, are able very readily to perceive any differences between the two pictures. Such differences in the scene between the two pictures tend literally to “pop out at you.” No differences of this kind were observed by the panel in stereo pairs depicting the back of Kennedy’s head, the top of his head, the large skull defect, the right front of the head, the back wound or the anterior neck wound. In this way, photographs of each of Kennedy’s wounds were effectively authenticated. (583) It is theoretically possible to alter photographs that comprise a stereo pair. To avoid detection of such alteration, however, requires that each picture comprising the pair be altered slightly different, ma systematic way. This is extremely difficult because each picture of a stereo pair is a picture of the scene from a shghtly different but directly comparable, point of view. Such alteration is virtually im- possible when, as in the case of Kennedy’s head, the image photo- graphed contains considerable detail. (5384) The examination of the postmortem X-rays focused primarily on the following possible indicia of fakery: (7) observation of a difference in density of the images; (2) discontinuity of anatomical structures: (3) alteration of continuity of an abnormal pattern ; or (4) production of an image which is not anatomical or an image of an impossible pathologic process. (535) No such evidence of fakery was discerned.(198) The X-ray Images have not been altered in any fashion except for: 228 damage resulting from a light (536) 1. Two small areas of thermal the “anteroposterior” image. source that was once held too close to rvation report dated No- These were reported to be present on an obse mber 10, 1966. This e Nove vember 1, 1966, and validated by signatur report is in the National Archives. minor “staining” or dis- . (587) 2. In addition, the panel observed processing of the film in e coloration of the images due to incom plete nue to be more the developing process. This discoloration will conti prominent with the passage of time. (199) with the postmortem — (538) Finally, the linear opacities associated on. These opaci- X-rays have been said to be the result of manipulatieliminate “scatter ties are normal grid lines from the grid used to the films, and, fogging” of the images at the time' of exposure of ce of manipula- therefore, represent normal image s rather than eviden tion. 3, FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGICAL ISSUES (a) Introductory statement of approach nt (539) In the course of its investigation of the death of Preside Kennedy, the committee encountered several problems concerning the ~ photographic identification of certain individuals either known or — alleged to have been involved in the assassination. Upon the advice of other scientific consultants, it was determined that some of these prob- | lems fall within the purview of forensic anthropology, a relatively new — discipline of the forensic sciences. (540) Forensic anthropology is defined as the application of the | physical anthropologist’s knowledge of human variation to problems — of legal medicine. As implied in this definition, forensic anthropolo- gists, of whom there are fewer than 30 in the United States, are physical anthropologists who, by training and experience, are qualified experts in the medicolegal aspects of their science. The parent field, physical anthropology, is the study of man’s biological variation in space and time. Any physical or physiological difference between human individuals and populations is of interest to physical anthro- pologists. Applications of their expertise range from the search and study of man’s remotest fossil ancestors to helping design space suits for astronauts. (541) For over a century physical anthropologists have measured the distances between specific anatomical landmarks of the human body in order to describe mathematically its variation in size and shape. To minimize error and insure repeatability, the measurements are made by trained anthropometrists with the subject: positioned in a standardized pose. Size differences in body dimensions are reflected in the measurements themselves. Shape differences are defined by simple indices or by more complex multivariate methods. An index is ordinarily computed by dividing the smaller of two measurements by the larger and multiplying the result by 100 to eliminate the deci- mal. For example, the nasal index is computed as follows: nose width Nasal Index= nose length 229 From this, it can be seen that the nasal index provides some numer- ically expressed information about the shape of a given individual’s nose. In a person with a short, broad nose, the index will be larger than in one whose nose is long and narrow. (542) Although measurements are usually taken on living subjects; techniques to obtain accurate anthropometric measurements from photographs have also been developed. Nevertheless, such methods require elaborate equipment and extremely close control of the sub- ject’s pose, lighting, lens-subject distance, and other technical factors. Photogrammetric anthropometry generally also requires that the anatomical landmarks be marked on the subject in advance so that the distance between these points can be measured on the photograph. (543) From time to time, forensic anthropologists are also asked to compare one or more photographs of crime suspects, disaster victims, or other unidentified persons to establish their identification. Usually, the photographs submitted for examination consist of casual snap- shots, press photographs, studio portraits, passport pictures, or police “mug shots.” Naturally, such photographs vary greatly in enlarge- ment, camera angle, image clarity, lens-subject distance, lighting, and other factors that make direct comparison of measurements taken from such disparate photographs extremely difficult or totally impractical. For instance, an individual’s nose width and length measured from a wallet-size identification photograph and a large studio portrait will be greatly different. Unless we know the exact degree of enlargement, type of camera, lens-subject distance, and many other technical fea- tures involved in making both photographs, meaningful comparison cannot be made between the nasal dimensions of the individual in terms of absolute size. Unfortunately, this kind of information is usually lacking on the types of photographs submitted for identification. In short, size differences cannot usually be studied in such analyses. (544) Nevertheless, if two photographs ‘are reasonably similar in camera angle—let us say, full-face—the ratio of nose width to length will he the same, or nearly so, in both photographs, Consequently, the nasal index, as defined above, can still be determined and meaning- fully compared. This of course does not necessarily mean that the value of the index will be precisely the same from photograph to photograph of the same individual. Small variations in camera angle, lighting, fa- cial expression of the subject, and measuring technique will introduce corresponding errors in the nose width and length measurements taken from the photograph, and these will be reflected as corresponding vari- ations in the index values. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to expect the varying index values of the same individual to cluster within a reason- ably narrow range. (545) Of course, one does not rely upon a single index. Along with nasal width and length, a number of other facial measurements can be accurately taken from suitable photographs and pairs of these can be combined to produce other indices which describe other features of facial shape. Angles are also independent of enlargement factors and can be used for comparison. For example, from profile photographs one can measure the angle between the nasal bridge and the general facial plane and, in the same individual, it will be found to be fairly constant from one photograph to another. Thus, instead of only one or two in- dices or angles, several can be employed to add reliability to the com- 230 to refer to comparisons parisons. The term metric analysis is used such as angles and indices. based on numerically expressed variables (546) The use of indices of this kind has not been refined to such an extent that a parti cular numer ical result may automatically be con- e betwe en two individuals, or sidered indicative of a strong resemblanc ved in each case. that the same indiv idual is, in fact, the subje ct invol ses a mean deviation of five Nevertheless, for general guideline purpo indicative of ative indice s may be consi dered or less between the cumul a strong physical resemblance. use of such (547) In addition to the analysis of metric traits by the ugh they indice s, there are certa in other facial featu res which , altho y, are never- cannot be conveniently measured or expressed numericall of fea- theles s very usefu l in photo graph ic compa rison s. This group tively can be called morph ologi cal tures vary considerably, but collec (as oppos ed to metri c) traits . (548) An example of such a trait is the lowly ear lobe which, aside from providing a convenient place to hang earrings, seems to have no discernible purpose except to provide physical anthropologists with something to classify. Accordingly, a threefold classification of ear lobes as either free, attached, or soldered has been devised. Free lobes are those that are to some degree pendulous; in attached lobes the outside margins of the ears connect more or less directly to the side of the face. The soldered lobe is an extreme form of the attached type in whicn union of ear margin and cheek is so direct that there is no discernible lobe at all. Since ear lobe type can frequently be deter- mined from photographs, the trait can be useful in identification. (549) In addition to lobe type, there are numerous other structural features of the human ear that vary considerably from one person — to the next. The total complex of these traits, while not as individually distinctive as fingerprints, are sufficiently unique to permit identifi- — cation beyond reasonable doubt in many cases. (550) Along with ears, the human face possesses an array of morpho- logical features that, while difficult to measure, can be readily classified. The nasal tip can be elevated (“snub-nosed”) or depressed, pointed or bulbous; the bridge of the nose, in profile, can be straight, convex or concave. Lips can be thick or thin; hair—straight, wavy, curly, or ep test so on. Also within this category are traits that are acquired y accident or age (or as Shakespeare put it “. . . through chance or nature’s changing course untrimmed”). Among traits acquired during life may be included warts, moles, and other random blemishes, scars from accidents or surgery, broken noses, cauliflower ears, and other cea or less permanent disfigurements. The inevitable loss of skin ancedsahae hes ae Ratsl and these networks of creases i Ty : patterns that uniquely characterize each human oar aaa eee ae eros ane a sty 1e comparison of traits that cannot be measured but onlv classi- tr grapsaetolh e morphological analysis of the photographs KR ° Sede ae Kae selesapel y iohiiode serving as committee consultants 492 hoy eal with five specific problems of photographic identifi- tat) : : ae Sateuatie of JFK autopsy photographs and X- ys.—C ertai n consp iracy theorists have claimed that the autopsy 231 photographs and X-rays are of a person other than the President. Is there scientific evidence that will support or refute this claim? (558) 2. The Milteer issue—Whether a certain man photographed in the line of motorcade spectators was actually one Joseph A. Mil- teer? Milteer (now dead) was a militant right wing activist who has been alleged to have had knowledge of a plot to assassinate Presi- dent Kennedy. (554) 3. The three tramps issue-—Shortly after the assassination, three men, described as derelicts, were apprehended by Dallas County Sheriff’s officers in a boxcar on the triple overpass overlooking Dealey Plaza. These men were released without being formally identified. Could any of these men be certain individuals who some conspiracy theorists claim were involved in an assassination plot? (555) 4. The “Second, Oswald” issue-—Several assassination theories have been based on the speculation that Lee Harvey Oswald may, at one stage or another, have been impersonated by a double. Do the known photographs of Oswald support or refute this hypothesis? (556) 5. The Lovelady issue—Photographs taken during the as- sassination show a man standing in the doorway of the Texas School- book Depository who bears a striking resemblance to Lee Harvey Oswald. Was this man actually Oswald or another Depository em- ployee, Billy N. Lovelady? (557) A review of the issues stated above shows that they were di- verse in scope and therefore required an equally diverse approach in their resolution. Nevertheless, certain steps and procedures that were common to all may be briefly outlined here. (558) 1. Selection of materials—An initial step in all cases was a review of the available photographic materials and selection of those technically suitable for analysis. In some cases the selection was ex- tremely limited. For example, because only one photograph of the spectator alleged to be Milteer was suitable for analysis, all compari- sons with known photographs of Milteer had to be made against this single item. At the other extreme, dozens of photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald ranging in time from his Marine Corps enlistment to his arrest in Dallas were available for study. (559) 2. Measurements——Selected photographs were next processed for measurement. In some cases, measurements were taken from the unenlarged original photographs with a Bausch and Lomb measuring magnifier equipped with a calibrated metric scale. In others, measure- ments were taken from enlargements (made, when possible, from the original negatives) to the nearest 1.0 mm. All measurements were taken by one observer. Measurements reported here represent the mean of three trials. (560) 38. Computations—As noted previously, since enlargement factors were unknown, size differences—as represented by the raw measurements taken from the photographs—could not be meaning- fully compared. Instead, indices were calculated between related measurement pairs. Wherever possible, landmarks, measurements and indices were selected that corresponded to those long standardized by physical anthropologists for facial anthropometry. Not all measure- ments could be taken from every photograph selected for study. For example, the various facial breadth measurements obviously could be obtained only from profile photographs. Even so, every effort was 232 for compari- made to obtain as many index measurements as possible is will son. More detailed descriptions of data reduct ion and analys be provid ed in the section s dealin g with the indivi dual proble ms of photographic comparisons. (b) Authentication of autopsy photographs 1. INTRODUCTION (561) The anthropology consultants were asked by the committee to examine postmortem radiographs and photographs taken during the autopsy of President Kennedy at the U.S. Naval Hospital on Nov. 22, 1963, and, if scientifically possible, determine whether or not they were in fact those of the President. The approach to this problem was through the comparison of the postmortem X-rays and photographs with those known to have been taken prior to his death.* (562) As noted previously in this appendix volume, the Kennedy assassination materials in the National Archives contain a series of negatives and prints of photographs allegedly taken during autopsy. The deficiencies of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been described elsewhere. (200) Here it is suffi- cient to note that: (563) 1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality. (564) 2. Some, particularly close-up views, were taken in such a pene that it is nearly impossible to orient anatomically the direction of view. (565) 8. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present, were positioned in such a manner to make it difficult or impos- sible to obtain accurate measurements of critical features (such as the wound in the upper back) from anatomical landmarks. (566) 4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim; such as his name, the autopsy case number, and the date and place of the examination. (567) In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards gen- erally expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence. In fact, in a criminal trial, the defense would probably raise many objec- tions to an attempt to introduce such poorly made and documented photographs as evidence. 2. ISSUE (568) Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to point out the obvious deficiencies of the autopsy photographs as scientific evidence. Some have questioned their authenticity. These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of the photo- ee Le is not President Kennedy, but another decedent deliberately Po ilated to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren eee s statements of their nature and significance. As macabre ee ra NG eg might appear, the onus of establishing the authen- (56 m4 With photographs would have rested with the prosecution. ) , With the above considerations in mind, the Committee re- quested the anthropology consultants to examine the questions sur- 7 The discussion of postmortem X-rays is set forth in pars. 596-610 infra. 233 rounding the authenticity of the JFK autopsy photographs. Their inquiry was limited to determining the ¢dentification of the victim shown in the photographs. Other aspects of authentication concerning the possibility of technical alterations of the negatives and prints were undertaken by other photographic experts, as described elsewhere in this appendix. Questions concerning the description and location of the wounds and of their nature and significance, were considered exclu- sively by the forensic pathology consultants. 3. MATERIALS Post mortem (570) It has previously been recorded and the committee similarly found, that the autopsy materials in the National Archives, contain a total of 52 exposed transparencies and/or negatives.(201) These may be divided into two series: (1) 25 4 x 5 inch black-and-white and (2) 27 4 x 5 inch color negatives. The entire series is numbered sequentially beginning with the black-and-white series: Black-and-white :No. 1—No. 25. Color: No. 26—-No. 52. (571) Examination of prints of the total series revealed that most of the black-and-white negatives are virtually duplicates, in subject and view, to corresponding negatives in the color series. Consequently, our detailed analysis was limited to an examination of the color series. These items were in the form of high quality 8’’ x 10’’ prints specially prepared for the committee by a team of professors from RIT. Each print was identified by its original negative number. The entire series is described by subject in Table I. Antemortem (572) In order to compare the facial features of the autopsy subject with those of John F. Kennedy, a number of antemortem photographs of the President were examined. These were also furnished by the Na- tional Archives. Two of these (National Archives Accession Nos. 79-A R-6378G and 79-AR-8008K) were selected for a more detailed comparison since they show a full profile of the subject with his mouth slightly open, and in pose and camera angle correspond almost exactly with the full profile view of autopsy photograph No. 29. 4. CONCLUSIONS (573) 1. The individual shown in the autopsy photographs is John F. Kennedy. (574) 2. The brain shown in autopsy photographs No. 46-No. 52 cannot be positively identified as that of John F. Kennedy. Neverthe- less, this brain displays trauma consistent with the known pattern of Injury sustained by President Kennedy and, in the absence of any positive evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to believe that it is not the brain of the President. 5. ANALYSIS (575) To examine the autopsy photographs from the standpoint of identification of the victim two hypotheses were considered : 234. (576) 1. That the subject shown in the photographs was not John F. Kennedy, but an unknown victim with a strong physical resem- blance to the assassinated president. (577) 2. That the victim in the photographs, in which the facial features are clearly visible, is in fact John F. Kennedy, but the body in which the face is not shown (particularly photographs No. 32 through No. 87 which document the location of the critical wounds of the back and head) is that of another, unknown, individual. (578) In order to test the first hypothesis, it was necessary to com- pare the facial features of the victim in the autopsy photographs with antemortem photographs of President Kennedy. This comparison was made on the basis of both metric and morphological features. (579) In making this comparison, it was first noted that there were no gross inconsistencies between the autopsy victim and general physi- cal characteristics of President Kennedy. The victim is a well-nour- ished, dark-haired, middle-aged, white male who appears to be of northern European ethnic stock. (580) The metric analysis was based on a comparison of autopsy photograph No. 29 with the two antemortem photographs (79-AR- 6378G and 79-A R-8008K) selected from the National Archives series. The exact date of the antemortem photographs was not determined but both were made during the Kennedy presidency and therefore do not antedate the autopsy photograph by more than 3 years. All three photographs show the subject in nearly perfect facial profile; autopsy No. 29 and 79-AR-8008K are left profile and 79-A R-6378G is a right profile photograph. (581) A series of 11 facial measurements were taken on each photo- oraph. These measurements are defined in Table II and portrayed graphically in Figure [V—39. Measurements were recorded to the near- est 1.0 mm and made from 8” x 10’’ prints. Three sets of measure- ments were made on each photograph and the means were used to calculate the 10 indices given in Table III. The arrangement of President Kennedy’s hair made it impossible to take physiognomic face height (mmt No. 1) in photographs 79-AR-6378G; otherwise, all the 11 measurements could be taken on each photograph. (582) As shown in Table ITT, the index values of the autopsy photo- graph and the two antemortem photographs correspond very closely. For further comparison, the mean of the antemortem indices was com- pared with the postmortem values (represented by a single value in indices 1,4, and 7 which are based on measurement No. 1 that could not be taken on 79-AR-6378G). The deviation between the antemortem and postmortem means range from 0.3 to 4.0 and the average deviation _ is 2.82 (Table IIT). This small deviation can be accounted for by a combination of several factors including that in the autopsy the sub- ject 1s supine while he is standing erect in the antemortem photo- graphs, and gravitational effects would cause some alteration of the facial features. The facial measurements would also be influenced by postmortem alterations and the effects of the massive cranial trauma. In short, the metric similarities, as expressed by facial indices are insignificant. 8) In addition to the strong metric similarities between autopsy photograph No, 29 and the two antemortem photographs, a number of identical morphological features can be observed. The examination 235 of morphological similarities was not limited to the three photographs from which the measurements were taken but included comparisons between the other autopsy photographs that show the victim’s face (No. 26, No. 27, No. 28, No. 29, No. 30, No. 31, No. 40, No. 41) and a series of 43 closeup photographs of President Kennedy selected from National Archives files to show his head and face from a variety of angles. In these comparisons, no inconsistencies in the morphological configuration of the eyes, nose, mouth, ears or other facial features were observed and, on the contrary, a number of identical features were apparent. These include rather distinctive traits such as the downward convexity of the nasal septum and an angular and elevated nasal tip (the latter, by the way, a trait observable in other members of the Kennedy family). Among similarities noted in the ears are a strong antihelix, small, “tucked” tragus, narrow intertragic notch and attached lobes. The lower margin of the helix is strongly concave at its junction with the lobe, giving the latter a rather attenuated ap- pearance. Patterns of facial lines and wrinkles were similar where they could be discerned in the autopsy photographs. (584) FES ee ee ee er 29.4 33.9 31.6 33.9 2.3 Me SCLOUK YS: 2 22 Ai AA See ee SPIES ANE Le aya2 41.2 3725 3.7 eo A00 5. tee PN SS at 47.1 45.0 46.0 50.0 4.0 MLO X100" 2 eo toe ee 60.8 61.5 61.2 63.6 2.4 S100 .See ee 49.7 45.9 47:8 47.5 3 1 Numbers refer to measurements defined in table II. : 2 Absolute differences between mean of antemortem index and postmortem index. Note: Mean deviation equals 2.82. TABLE 1V.—Morphological similarities in both the ante mortem and post mortem Kennedy photographs Convex angle of nasal septum. “Tucked” ear tragus. Lower third of nose convexity. Distinctive lip profile. Nasal tip area elevated. Identical facial crease lines. Attached ear lobe. Similar neck crease lines. Strong ear antihelix. (c) Authentication of Autopsy X-rays 1, INTRODUCTION (596) Human bone structure varies uniquely from one individual to another. The bones not only differ in their overall size and shape but also in their minute structural details so that the total pattern of skeletal architecture of a given person is as unique as his or her fingerprints. Forensic anthropologists have long made use of this fact in establishing the positive identification of persons killed in combat, aircraft accidents, or other disasters, by comparing X-rays taken be- fore death with those of the unidentified body taken after death. (597) Of course, just as no two individuals are alike, no two X-rays of the same bones of the same person are ever exactly alike because there is always some variation in the positioning of the subject, the ‘X-ray technique, and the processing of the film. The skeleton also undergoes some remodeling throughout life so that a certain amount of variation in detail is to be expected in films of the same individual taken a few years apart. Nevertheless, with experience, these technical and age variations can be taken into account so that, given a pair of Teasonably good films of the same person, posed in the same way, a 240 positive identification can nearly always be made even if the X-rayst — were made many years apart by different technicians using differen equipment. (598) In the following analysis the committee applied this method in comparing the post mortem X-rays said to be those of President Kennedy with clinical films known to have been taken prior to his — death. 2. ISSUE (599) Just as they have questioned the autopsy photographs, critics of the Warren Commission have suggested that the autopsy X-rays are not those of President Kennedy. The committee asked the anthropology consultants to examine the X-rays to determine if they are of the President. 3. MATERIALS (600) Both ante mortem and post mortem X-rays examined were from the JFK assassination materials curated by the National Archives. (601) The autopsy X-rays bear the case number “21296” of the U.S. Naval Hospital in Bethesda, Md. They include front and side views of the skull as well as a series of overlapping views of the torso and upper legs. There are also several X-rays of three skull fragments reportedly found in the Presidential automobile after the assassination.* (602) In addition to the autopsy X-rays, the Archives collection| includes three sets of clinical X-rays of President Kennedy taken at various times prior to his death. Two of these sets were made by per- sonal physicians who treated the then-Senator Kennedy for an upper respiratory illness in August 1960. The earliest, dated August 14, bears the case number “202617” of Dr. Stephen White, 521 Park Avenue, New York. The second set was made 8 days later at the clinic of Drs. Groover, Christie, and Merritt of 1835 I Street NW., Washington, D.C., and bears the case number “336042.” Dr. White’s series consists of a side view of the head and a routine chest plate. Those from the Groover, Christie, and Merritt Clinic include side and front views of the skull. The third set of ante mortem X-rays were taken at the U.S. Naval Hospital in Bethesda on March 14, 1962, while President Ken- nedy was undergoing treatment for a back complaint. These X-rays consist of front and side views of the lower spine and pelvis. Hereafter, these three sets of ante mortem X-rays will be referred to as the “White,” “Groover,” and “Navy” films, respectively. 4. CONCLUSION (603) Both the> skull SKUs and torso so auto autopsy radiographs, i i the now in pos- session of the National Archives, are S raaaoe Paceent Toe F. Kennedy. 5. ANALYSIS (604) First the “Groover” and “White” ante mortem X-rays of the Pia were compared with the autopsy films. In the front views, it was ound that the outlines of the frontal sinuses of the autopsy X-rays *A list of these materials is set forth at pars. 516-522 supra. 241 were virtually superimposable on those shown in the clinical X-rays. The sinuses, which are lobular air pockets inside the bone that forms the forehead, vary uniquely in size and shape from one person to another. This variability is seen particularly in the outlines of their upper margin which typically cast a set of scalloplike shadows on the X-ray. This scallop pattern is so individually distinctive that forensic anthropologists have termed them “sinus prints.” For many years, courts of law throughout the world have accepted the matching on ante mortem and post mortem X-rays of the sinuses as evidence for the positive identification of unknown bodies. In the present case, the simi- larity in shape of the sinus print patterns in the ante mortem and post mortem films is sufficient to establish that they are of the same person on the basis of this trait alone. (605) In addition to the sinus prints, several other strikingly similar anatomical features were observed in the front view X-rays. For exam- ple, the nasal septum—the thin wall of cartilage and bone that sepa- rates the nostrils—was deviated to the same side and to an identical degree in ante mortem and post mortem films. Also, the outlines of the bony rims of the orbits of the eyes were nearly identical. The very slight variations observed in these three features—sinus pattern, nasal septum, and orbital margins—are the results of minor differences in the way the X-rays were taken. (606) The profile views of the skull in the White and Groover films were next compared to the autopsy X-rays. Again, a number of almost identical anatomical features were observed in the ante mortem and post mortem films. For example, the outlines of the sella turcica (the saddle-shaped depression in the base of the skull) , the complex patterns of the cranial sutures (the joints uniting the bones of the skull), and location and arrangement of the vascular grooves (the shallow depres- sions on the inner surface of the skull which mark the course of blood vessels) were the same. There was also nearly exact duplication of the ° honeycomblike air cells of the mastoid bone. (607) The chest X-ray taken by Dr. White in 1960, was next com- pared to those of the upper torso taken at autopsy. Again, a number of identical features were noted in both sets of films. Among these were the outlines of the dorsal spines of the thoracic vertebrae. (‘These spines are the bony projections that are visible just under the skin along the center of the back.) In X-rays these spines project a vertical series of small shadows of varying sizes and shape that, like the architectural features of the skull discussed above, are virtually unique in each indi- vidual. In shape these shadows may range from almost perfect circles to irregular trapezoids. They vary not only from one individual to the next. but from one vertebra to another in the same individual so that the series of a dozen or se of these spines, usually visible in a standard chest film, form a combination of shapes distinctive for each individ- ual. Allowing for slight distortions due to position and technique, this series of spines can be considered identical in the antemortem and postmortem films. (608) In addition to the similar pattern of dorsal vertebrae spines, a number of other features common.to both sets of film were observed. For example, the size and shape of the medial ends of the clavicula (collar bones) were identical, as was the pattern of ossification of the 2osto-chondral junctions of the first ribs. Numerous details in the form 242 and trabecular structure of the ribs could also be matched from one set of films to the other, particularly in the left eighth and ninth ribs — which were especially well-defined in both films. (609) The autopsy radiographs of the lower torso, including the pel- vis and upper legs, could be compared to the antemortem Navy films taken in 1962. These also show an impressive number of osseous details in common. Of particular interest was the right transverse process of the fifth lumbar vertebra. In both sets of films it was displaced up- wards in a manner suggestive of a congenital malformation or an old, — ununited fracture. (610) Tosummarize, the skull and torso radiographs taken at autopsy — match the available ante mortem films of the President in such a wealth | of intricate morphological detail that there can be no reasonable doubt that they are in fact X-rays of John F. Kennedy, and no other person. — (d) Comparison of photographs of Joseph Milteer with that of an | unidentified Dallas motorcade spectator : 1. INTRODUCTION (611) An unidentified motorcade spectator who bears a strong resem- blance to Joseph Adams Milteer, a militant right-wing organizer who is alleged to have been a possible coconspirator in the assassination, appears in the background of a photograph that was taken by Asso- ciated Press photographer James W. Altgens less than a minute before the assassination occurred. (202) The presidential limousine can be seen passing the Dal-Tex building on Houston Street just before the vehicle turned south onto Elm Street in front of the Texas School Book De- pository Building. The spectator in question is seen standing on the east side of Houston Street, just beyond the limousine. He is a white male appearing to be about 60 +10 years of age. Immediately to his right is a taller man wearing a dark hat, coat and necktie. (See figure TIVO, JFK Exhibit F-124). 243 ae een ete ems, he teen melt i hme AaMom ee ee j | i Ficure IV-40.—Altgens 1-5 photograph taken on Houston Street. (612) Milteer’s possible involvement in the assassination was first brought to public attention by Harold Weisberg, the author, who de- scribed a taped conversation that allegedly took place in Miami, Fla. 13 days before the assassination between Milteer and a Miami police informant, Willie A. Somersett (both now deceased).(203) During the taped discussion, a voice identified as that of Joseph Milteer says that a plan to kill the President is “in the working” and describes how ‘the President could be shot “(f)rom an office building with a high- powered rifle.”(204) FBI documents describe subsequent interviews, both with a “reliable informant,” (205) relating further incriminat- ing comments by Milteer regarding the events of the assassination, (206) and with Milteer, who denied any involvement.(207) ‘These FBI documents were retained in the Warren Commission files, but the Commission is said not to have investigated this matter further. (208) (618) Assassination critics raise the possibility that Milteer was an active participant in a conspiracy and present in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination as evidenced by the Altgens photograph. (209) The man the critics claim is Milteer also appears in a few frames of the Bell, Nix and Muchmore motion picture films. 2. ISSUE (614) By comparing known photographs of Milteer with photo- graphs of the motorcade spectator in Dealey Plaza, is it possible to ‘determine whether the spectator, in fact, is Milteer? 244 3. MATERIALS (615) (a) The photographs of Joseph Milteer consist of the follow- ing items: Figure IV-41.—Undated studio photographs of Joseph Milteer. Figure IV-41.—Two undated 5 x 7-inch black-and-white studio portraits stamped “Modern Studio, 219 W. Adams Street, Jacksonville, Florida.” In these, the subject appears to be about 40 +5 years old. As Milteer was born in 1902, these photographs probably date from the 1940’s or early 1950’s. Figure IV-42.—A 3 x 38-inch snapshot of Milteer seated in a chair. A 1957 calendar appears in the background. Figure [V-43.—A 3 x 4-inch black-and-white photograph. This photograph is undated, but judging from the subject’s apparent age is obviously later than Figure [V-41 photographs and prob- ably also later than figure [TV-42. Figure IV-44.—A 3.5 x 5.5-inch black-and-white photograph of Milteer standing beside an unidentified elderly woman. It is undated, but is said to have been taken in the early 1970’s when Milteer was about 70 years old. 245 {gURE IV-42.—Color snapshot of Joseph Milteer. Note 1957 calendar background. FIGuRE 1V-43.—Undated photograph of Joseph M ilteer. 247 FIaurE 1V-44.—Photograph of Joseph Milteer taken in early 1970’s. (616) (6) Prints of the spectators were made from the original Alt- |ens negative. (See fig. 1V-45, JFK Exhibit F—563). In addition th the Altgens negative and relevant frames of the Bell film were ‘Subjected to digital image processing. (2/0)* (See fig. IV-46). 4, CONCLUSIONS (617) Milteer resembles the Kennedy motorcade spectator in age and general facial configuration. The spectator appears to have worn eye- glasses similar in general style to those favored by Milteer. The spec- _tator, however, does not resemble Milteer in upper lip thickness; he is also partially bald, whereas Milteer apparently had a full head of hair m the photograph that was taken several years after the assassination. (See fig. IV-44). Most significantly, Milteer’s reported stature of * Computer enhancement of the spectator as seen in the Bell film did not pro- duce usable results. 248 64 inches places him about 6 inches under the spectator’s estimated stature.* (618) In the absence of evidence that (1) Milteer had become exten- sively bald by 1963 or was wearing a hairpiece in the postassassination photograph, or that (2) Milteer’s statural estimate of 64 inches is incorrect, the motorcade spectator could not have been J oseph Milteer. 5. ANALYSIS First. Metric analysis (619) Although several enlargements and an enhanced photograph of the spectator have been furnished for examination, they are not sufficiently sharp to permit any meaningful comparison based on facial measurements and indices. (See fig. [V-46). Second. Age (620) The age of the motorcade spectator is estimated at 60 +10 years. Milteer was approximately 61 years old in 1963.(2/1) Third. Eyeglasses (621) In all three photographs of Milteer taken during his later years he is wearing eyeglasses with composite frames (plastic upper rims, wire lower) and a broad metal nosepiece. (See figs. IV-42 and 1V-44). The spectator is also wearing spectacles which appear to be of the same general style favored by Milteer. (See fig. IV-46.) Fourth. Lip thickness (622) All of the available Milteer photographs show that the mem- branous position of Milteer’s upper lip was very thin. The enhanced photographs of the spectator suggest a rather full and thick upper lip. (See fig. IV-46). This is not a trait apt to be influenced by normal variation in facial expression. Fifth. Hair (623) In the earliest photographs Milteer has a full, regular hair- line with no central or lateral retreat suggestive of incipient baldness. (See figure [V-41). In the photograph that was apparently taken when Milteer was about 55 years old, his hairline is virtually identical to that of the earlier photographs. (See figure IV-42). The latest photograph,} taken about a decade after the assassination, shows Milteer with a full head of hair. (See figure TV-44). The spectator, however, appears to have little, if any, hair. The extent of his balding, though, could not be ascertained; no hairline is visible, and in fact, the entire frontal crown of his head appears bare. (See figure [V-46). Stature (624) The only available height record on Milteer gives his stature as 64 inches.(2/2) This corresponds to about the eek statural per- centile of American males. That is, about 93 out of 100 adult America men would be taller than Milteer. Also, about 35 percent of adult American females would exceed Milteer’s reported height.(2/3) I Scenes the spectator alleged to be Milteer is taller than 4 of the of er males and all of the 16 females in the line of spectators shown i e motorcade photograph. Based upon Milteer’s reported height, th *See infra, pars. 625-659. 249 probability of randomly selecting a group of Americans where so many are shorter than Milteer’s reported height is .0000007. Moreover, an analysis based upon actual measurements of certain physical features shown in the photograph yields a height estimate for the spectator of about 70 inches—6 inches taller than Milteer’s reported stature.* ADDENDUM Heicut ANALysis oF ALLEGED JosEPH MILTEER (625) According to the only known physical description of Milteer, he was 64 inches (162.6 cm) in height.(2/4) As errors of as much as +9 inches are not uncommon in police and medical records,(2/5) we will assume that his true stature was somewhere between 62 and 66 inches (157.5-167.6 cm). The key question, then, is whether or not the stature of the motorcade spectator falls within the estimated stature range of Milteer. If so, the finding would not, of course, prove that the spectator was indeed Milteer but would at least be consistent with this theory. If, however, the spectator’s stature falls outside the range, it would substantially decrease the likelihood that he is Milteer. Materials and methods (626) The photograph on which the following analysis was based was taken from the intersection of Main and Houston shortly after the presidential limousine had turned right onto Houston Street from Main. (See figure IV-40). The view takes in the entire front of the Dallas County Records Building and a portion of the Dal-Tex Build- ing. Direction of view is toward the northeast. (627) In this photograph, the spectator in question is a balding white male in a light-colored short-sleeve shirt who appears to be about 60 +10 years of age. He is standing in the line of spectators arrayed along the sidewalk in front of the records building. Immediately to his right is a tall white male in a dark suit and hat. (628) For the analysis, the committee furnished the original 35 millimeter black-and-white negative taken by James Altgens. Our photographic measurements were made from an 8 x 10 inch enlarge- ment of the negative. See figure IV-45. Angular measurements ‘were recorded to the nearest 0.10 and taken with a Lutz-—10 inch pro- tractor. Linear measurements were taken with a needlepoint Helios dial caliper to the nearest 0.1 millimeter. Each angular and linear measurement reported here represents the mean of three trials. The site (629) A map of the site (Warren Commission exhibit 882, 17 :901) shows the sidewalk fronting the records building to be of uniform width (10 feet) from the Houston-Elm corner southward to where ‘it curves into the driveway between the records building and the Criminal Courts Building. From measurements by the committee (216) the elevation of the sidewalk in relation to the records building was found to be uniform. The street, however, slopes slightly upward so that the curb is higher near the driveway entrance than at the -Houston-Elm corner. *A detailed analysis of the available statural data is given infra, pars. 625-659. 250 sa Signposts in the following of partic ular import ance (630) Physical features located a short distance north analysis are the two tall street signposts er. (See fig. IV-45). Each of the spectator alleged to be Milte , the lowest of which bears post holds three vertically arranged signsers.” According to informa- the notice “no parking except polic e offic standard dimensions for such tion supplied by the committee, the signs in Dallas are 12 x 18 inches and, in 1963, city regulations specified be set 80 inches above the that the bottom edge of the lowest sign sidewalk. (217) cade photograph Vertical and horizontal reference lines* o f motor of the motorcade photo-_ (631) The vertical reference line (VRL) s corner of the Dalla graph is taken as coincident with the northwest County Records Building. the elevation The horizontal reference line (HRL) which represents perspective lens, can be calcul ated from the of the center of the camera the west face angles of two transverse masonry seams that run across of these of the records building. (See fig. IV-45 ). The upper passes along the botto m edge of a large windo w. The lower line seams line is partially obscured by the heads of the specta tors. The upper slopes upwar d, and the lower line slopes slight ly downw ard from. left to right; therefore, the HRL must pass betwe en them and also per- pendicular to the VRL. (632) The law of perspective dictates that the two masonry lines, if extended indefinitely, would meet at the vanishing point of the photo- graph.** Consequently, their extensions may be visualized as forming the sides of a triangle, ABC, the apex of which is the vanishing point and the base of which is that segment of the VRL subtended by the angle of convergence of the masonry lines. Since, as noted above, the HRL must pass between the masonry lines and is also perpendicular to VRL, it can be visualized as subdividing the triangle ABC into two smaller right triangles AHC and HBC (See figure 1V-47). (633) The angles a and a’, measured from the photograph are 89.0°} and 87.5°, respectively, and p=90.0—89.0=1.0° p’=90.0—87.5=2.5° and since AH — AH tan 6B tan 1.0° as IO RO Re Es Ge AH+AB tanf-+tanp’ tan 1.0°+tan 2.5° the Renee of HRL above the intersection of the lowest masonry lin mit VRL is about 28.6% (=.286 X 100) of the total distance betwee e masonry lines. When projected onto the photograph, the HRL is een teay slightly above the head of the alleged Milteer. (See Fig *Measurements are made 1 aboy re and below ‘ a hypothetical plane known a analogus to measurements that ean agape plane or horizontal reference line, distances are measured alon ae atl peSa hethatends to sea level. Vertical runs perpendicular to the horizonta paietenes How cal reference line that +e or a discussion of the ic + 6 “vanishing point” concept see pars. 414-417 supra. . . : FicurE IV-45.—Enlargement of original Altgens photograph used in stature analysis of spectator alleged to be Joseph Milteer. AEE LIL NT EERE EE NE OAR IRE ENE NS IRIE ASSP ORE aeHRA RR RH NAN OE REY ‘ Enhancement by digital image processing 42-370 0 - 79 - 17 ee- = Fess Soa OF RCT « eS ae as ee / alice se Maen ydi Ses” fa 55 esae ep 4a‘ ae ee Bat sae dis, “ae ae uae ‘ae at Se ea 32 teSFcme ~aed erat SREac ee OFAES +SEYoat ma aR FO iach Ficure IV-46.—Enlarged enhancements of spectator from Altgens photograph. VRLE Upper mosonry HRS Vanishing point S1A Lower masonry line Gast of Records Building Fiaurn IV-47.—Derivation of the vanishing point (C) and the horizontal refer- ence line (HRL) from the Altgens photograph, using masonry lines and the northwest corner of the Dallas County Records Building as the vertical refer ence line (VRL). The spectators (634) Approximately 60 spectators are shown in the motoread photograph. (See figure [V-40). They are standing in an irregula line stretching from the south end of the Records Building northward to the vicinity of the southwest corner of the Dal-Tex Building. A the south end of this line are five males, four of whom are stand in the street in front of an automobile parked near the drivewa entrance. The fifth man of this group is sitting on the fender of th automobile. At the north end of the line, extending from the southeas corner of the sidewalk of the Houston-Elm intersection, most of th spectators are also standing in the street. 253 (635) Between these two groups, is an intermediate segment of the spectator line consisting of 28 individuals, including the alleged Milteer. (See figure IV-45). In the motorcade photograph, the lower bodies of these spectators are obscured by the presidential limousine ‘so that it is impossible to determine whether they are standing in the street or on the curb. Nevertheless, other motorcade films show that the individuals in the north portion of this line, including the spectator under investigation, are standing along the edge of the sidewalk. (278) Judging from their relative height and position, it. seems reasonable to assume that the persons in the south end of this line are also on the sidewalk. At the south end of this line is a white female shading her ‘eyes with a parcel held in her left hand; the line ends with a Black man. wearing a dark hat who is standing just to the left of the utility pole at the northwest corner of the Records Building. (636) Besides the alleged Milteer, this group of sidewalk spectators consists of 27 individuals. The sex of two cannot be determined as they are nearly totally obscured by other spectators. Among the remaining 25 are 17 women and 8 men. Two of these spectators, a male in a non- military uniform, and a very short female standing immediately on the left of the man alleged to be Milteer, appear to be rather young individuals who may not have attained adult stature. The remaining 7 males and 16 females are adults ranging from about 20 to 60 years of age. Two of the males and six of the females:are Black. Judging from their short stature and rather dark complexions, it is possible that as many as 4 of the 10 Caucasoid females may be of Mexican- American ethnic extraction. (637) Thus, in terms of age and ethnic composition, the group seems fairly representative of the urban population of Dallas during the 1960’s. (279) The preponderance of females might be accounted for by the relatively large number of women employees in the many retail stores, business offices and local government agencies in this area of Jowntown Dallas. Barring undue sampling errors, the average stature of both sexes in the group might be expected to approximate the mean stature of the general U.S. adult population. Uethods of analysis (688) The hypothesis that the spectator’s stature falls within Milteer’s stature range of 64 +2 inches can be tested by two methods: (639) 1. Estimation of the spectator’s height in relation to the street lgns; and (640) 2. Relating his height to the heights of the other sidewalk spectators. 641) Although possibly redundant, using both methods is advan- sageous as they are independent; that is, neither relies on informa- ion used in the other. More specifically, the first method could be used ven 1f the alleged Milteer were standing alone on the sidewalk and, vonversely, the second method does not depend on the presence of the ‘trect signs in the photograph. As each method is based upon differ- »nt assumptions and subject to different errors, they provide a valuable heck upon one another. 642) Both methods share the assumption that the elevation of the idewalk, from north to south, is uniform. Beyond this, each method as a unique assumption: 254 ded the Committee (643) Method 1—The signpost dimensions provi must be assumed This by Dallas Street Department officials are correct. graph have been re- because the actual signs seen in the 1963 photo moved and, thus, can no longer be measured directly. that, as a group, (644) Method 2.—In using this method it is assumed sidewalk the stature of the adult men and women standing along the tion of approximate the statural norms of the genera l U.S. popula the 1960's. Test 1: Estimation of height from street signs one (645) If the spectator happened to have been standing against a of the signposts, it could be used as a simple measur ing rod to obtain . Unfort unatel y, this is not so; therefo re measurement of his stature g this would violate the geometric rules of perspective by simply passin » horizontal line across the top of the spectat or’s head and using its ‘ntersection with one of the signposts as the measuring point. to (646) Imagine, however, that there was a third sign, identical the other two, positio ned immedia tely behind the spectato r. Such a sion would provide an ideal measuring rod as the spectator is stand- ing by the edge of the sidewalk. Ficure I1V-48.—Hstimation of spectator’s height from street signs. 255 (647) ‘Taking the laws of perspective into account, this imaginary sign can be constructed by passing two lines connecting the tops and bottoms of the real signs to a point immediately above the top of the spectator’s head. A vertical line, perpendicular to HRL, passing up- ward from the top of the spectator’s head represents the post of the imaginary sign. (See figure IV-48, JFK exhibit F-562.) This sign will have the same actual dimensions of the other two: its length is 18 inches and its lower border is 80 inches above the sidewalk. From these relationships the spectator’s stature can be calculated from the formula: Stature, inches—H — wae where H=height of lower border of sign above sidewalk in inches s =actual length of sign in inches s’=length of sign measured on photograph in millimeters d=distance from top of spectator’s head to lower border of sign measured on photograph in millimeters (648) In the present case, 4=80 inches, s=18 inches, s’=16.1 mm and d=9.1 mm, so spectator’s stature=—80—(18 x 9.1) inches se 16.1 =80—10.2 inches. =69.8 inches (649) In round figures, the stature of the alleged Milteer would have been about 70 inches (177.8 em) or 5 foot, 10 inches. Thus, he would have been about 2.5 inches taller than the average 55-64 year old U.S. male of the early 1960s. (220) More importantly, he exceeds Joseph Milteer’s reported stature of 64 inches by 6 inches. Test 2: Stature relative to other spectators (650) Just asan imaginary sign has been created, it may be imagined that the two real signs have vanished. Now there is no convenient measuring rod against which the spectator’s stature may be measured. Nevertheless, inspection of the photograph shows that, among the adult spectators lining the sidewalk, only one, the man in the Black hat standing next to him, is clearly taller than the alleged Milteer. (See figure [V-49, JFK exhibit F-563). Allowing for perspective, it is possible that the two Black males toward the end of the line are also taller; if it is assumed they are, then four of the seven males can be counted as shorter than the spectator. He is also definitely taller than all of the 16 adult females among the sidewalk spectators. 256 Fricure 1V-49.—Spectator’s stature relative to other bystanders. (651) Consider then the null hypothesis that the spectator is actually only 64 inches in height. If so, he has managed to insert himself among an apparently random group of 23 adults of whom 7 men and 16 women are shorter than he. Such an elfin array would be unlikely to congregate through chance alone in downtown Dallas, Tex. (652) According to a nationwide anthropometric survey of adult Americans conducted in 1960-62, the median height of males was 68.3 inches (173.5 cm) and of females 62.9 inches (159.8 cm). Furthermore, only about 7 percent of men were under 64 inches in height. Approxi- mately 65 percent of adult females were shorter than 64 inches. (221 ) Stated differently, if the spectator’s stature was only 64 inches, he would be shorter than about 93 percent of adult men and 35 percent of adult women. (653) As adult stature is normally distributed, the probability of randomly selecting a group of 16 adult women shorter than 64 inches from the general population is as follows: P 9 16<64'7 = Cie, 16 (.65)16 =.00102 or about 1 in 1000. (654) The probability of randomly selecting a group of seven American men, four of whom are less than 64 inches in height is as follows: P Pa mee (Altgens Photo) a Lovelady in 1963 Lovelady photo- shirt (1976) .ue graphed by FBI (Bell Film) in 1964 FicurE IV-67.—Photographic evidence evaluated in Robert Groden’s shirt analysis. 289 (763) This contradiction was partially resolved by photo-optical work performed by Robert Groden, a Warren Commission critic and photographic consultant to the committee.* During his work with the committee Groden made photographically enhanced enlargements of the original 35 millimeter black and white Altgens negative and frames of the Bell, Martin, and Hughes color motion picture films, which also showed the spectator in the doorway, and detected a pattern of lines that correspond in pattern and color more closely to Lovelady’s plaid shirt than to Oswald’s tweed-patterned shirt. (253) (See figure IV-67.) (764) Even so, in an effort to resolve the issue even more definitively, the photographic evidence panel’s board of forensic anthropologists were requested to study the photograph of the spectator shown stand- ing in the doorway. 2. ISSUE (765) Is it possible to identify positively as either Lee Harvey Os- wald or Billy Lovelady, the man, shown in the Altgens photograph standing by the doorway entrance to the Texas School Book De- pository at the time of the President’s assassination. *Groden initially was among those who claimed the Altgens photograph could not be of Lovelady. See note 249 supra. Figure IV-68.—Enlargement of spectator’s face. Altgens A.P.—World Wide Photos 291 FiaureE IV-69.—Oswald arrest in Dallas. ) 3. MATERIALS Spectator (766) In order to produce the clearest possible photographic images of the spectator in question, the Photographic Evidence Panel had black and white prints made from the original Altgens 35 millimeter negative at various contrasts, density levels and enlargements.” (254) They included various enlargements of the spectator’s face such as that shown in figure IV-68. The anthropologists were furnished with a number of these prints. Oswald (767) A series of photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald, ranging from the time of his U.S. Marine Corps enlistment in 1956 to his arrest in Dallas in 1963, were provided to the anthropologists. While all were examined, those taken on the day of Oswald’s arrest in Dallas received the closest scrutiny. (See, for example, Figure I[V-69). *The Altgens negative was not subjected to digital image processing because the image was blurred to the resolution limitations of the camera system, and, onsequently, the Photographic Evidence Panel believed that computer assisted ancement techniques would not aid in identifying the man in the doorway. 292 ; Bs Lovelady which varie d in (768) Photographs of Lovelady were furnished near the time st were those taken date from 1959 to 1977. Of most intere .) of the assassination. (See, for examp le, figure IV-70 Ficure IV—-70.—Billy Nolan Lovelady circa 1959-63. 4. CONCLUSION (769) Due to the blurred quality of the enlargements of the spec tator’s image in the Altgens photograph, it was not possible either t identify or exclude positively Lovelady or Oswald. Based on a subjec tive assessment of the facial features of the spectator, however, it was determined that the man in the doorway bears a much stronger re semblance to Lovelady than to Oswald. Thus, assuming it is eithe Oswald or Lovelady, and not a third party, it appears highly improb able that the spectator is Oswald and highly probable that he Lovelady. 293 5. ANALYSIS (770) In comparing the photographs of Oswald and Lovelady, the general similarities in facial configuration between the two men were initially noted. Closer examination of the photographs revealed sig- nificant differences in the two men’s facial proportions :* (771) (a) Facial length—Relative to facial breadth across the cheek- bones, Lovelady’s face is longer than Oswald’s. (772) (b) Lower jaw breadth.—Relative to facial breadth, measured across the cheekbones, Lovelady’s lower jaw is narrower than Oswald’s. (773) (c) Chin length.—Relative to facial length, Lovelady has a somewhat longer chin than Oswald. (774) (d) Forehead breadth.—Relative to the breadth of the face measured across the cheekbones, Lovelady’s is broader than Oswald’s. (775) (e) Nasal breadth.—Relative to nose length, Lovelady’s nose is broader than Oswald’s. (776) (f) Nasal tip—Oswald’s nasal tip is somewhat small and sharply contoured, whereas that of Lovelady is rounder and more sulbous. (777) (g) Forehead height.—Due to hairline recession, Lovelady has H belatively higher forehead than Oswald. (778) (h) Hairline contour.—Photographs of Lovelady and Oswald ‘aken at a time close to the assassination indicate that. overall Love- ady’s central hairline had receded more than Oswald’s, resulting in Lovelady’s higher forehead, as noted above; in addition, the recession m both sides of Lovelady’s temple is more sharply advanced than Jswald’s. Lovelady’s recession was not uniform, and he has a down- ward projection in the hairline about one inch to the right of the center of his forehead. This eccentrically placed “widow’s peak” was not ybserved in any of Oswald’s photographs. 779) In summary, Lovelady’s face is relatively longer than Os- wald’s, its length accentuated, in part, by more advanced balding and ilso by his narrower lower jaw and deeper chin. The asymmetry in iis hairline is also a distinctive trait. 780) The enlargements of the spectator’s face are not of sufficient juality to permit accurate measurements. However, several features -orresponding to Lovelady’s traits can be discerned and subjectively n 785) (e) A rather bulbous nasal tip. *All measurements relative to these facial proportions are provided in the ables accompanying the text to pars. 732-748 supra. ORT BY ROBERT (786) COMMENTS ON THE PANEL’S REP | COMMITTEE GRODEN, CONSULTANT TO THE PREFACE ission and coauthor of Robert Groden, a critic of the Warren Comm ogra phic consultant to the JFK: The Case for Conspiracy, was a phot grou nd information on committee. In this capacity, he prov ided back in the area of the photo- the issues that have been raised by the critics assistance to the com- eraphic evidence; he also provi ded techn ical he made an important mittee in the area of photography. As such, gh not a member of contribution to the work of the committee. Thou phic evide nce panel , he also gave panel mem- the committee’s photogra had been done on bers an extensive briefing on the prior work that he also had addit ional input to the panel’s various photographic issues; staff working work, either through communications with committee s. As a con- with the panel or through participation in panel discu ssion sultant to the committee, Groden was given access to the work of the. ittee publish photographic evidence panel and asked that the comm his comments on the panel ’s repor t. of the The committee believes that Groden’s views should be part do record, although in including them, the commit tee or the panel them. In additio n, the commit tee noted some errors and not endorse misunderstandings in terms of the panel’s work that should be borne of in mind. By way of example, Groden was unaware that the frame the Nix movie film corresponding to Zaprud er frame 318, which shows the fatal head shot, had been digitally scanned, and that the photo- eraphic evidence panel had in fact been asked whether President Kennedy showed a reaction to a bullet prior to Zapruder frame 190. With respect to the work of the panel, Groden was also apparently unfamiliar with some procedures (that is, why only original materials were relied upon for enhancement and analytical purposes) and with the basis for some panel decisions (that is, why it attached little weight to the fact that the Kennedy autopsy photographs were taken with 1963 film). The general issues that roden addresses in his comments, particularly in the area of the photographic evidence, are also ad- dressed in the panel’s report. (294) 295 015086 DADUAL Ve ue bbe The Honorable Chairman Louis Stokes Select Committee on Assassinations U. S. House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515 Dear Sir: Enclosed please find the formal dissenting view scientific dealing with the work of the Committee's report on medical and photographic panels and my I feel were related photographic materials which ately covered in the public hearing s. inadequ Committee, As a photographic consultant to the sed for the I feel that these views should be expres record and for history. I will be including photo- reports graphic materials relating to the various herewith enclosed. - Sincerely, Kiberef@hodo Robert J. Groden T. Tue “BackyAaRD” PHOTOGRAPHS Among the areas in which I disagree with the way the photo evi- dence was presented and treated, was using only Jack White’s argu- ments in the area of the Neely Street photographs. You were all aware that some of the arguments presented were no longer issues and that some of them never really were. The true issues were not accurately dealt with in the hearings. These were the discrepancy of the head to body size as well as the height-to-rifle length ratio and the visual retouching of the skin and surrounding area. At the July 19 panel meeting I didn’t argue the point because of my desire to attend the rest of the meetings. But in my opinion no matter what the panel members concluded, the backyard photographs are beyond question fakes. Disregarding all of the other evidence supporting the fact of forgery, the visual areas of retouching cannot be easily dismissed. _For the record, the method used here was, almost without doubt, simply posing a man (or possibly different men for each photograph) in the backyard with the rifle, pistol and publications as part of this Beginal picture. The only item added was the head of Lee Oswald es ee of the oon Be The argument that all of the back- re the same is, I feel, impracti idea of adding the shadows after the at AES MERE LR COR BP 4 eet AnNesBea ger Jack ie mt done on the rifles, I don’t | e to present “all of the is ues” Neely Street photographs os ever be justified. eA say toa one 296 II. Tue Nix anp MoorMan PICTURES Pp. ograph > roid phot No. 2 Polaarold Dr. Hunt’s “analysis ” of the Moorman d the questioning insufficient | error an and the Nix film were in extreme to accurately deal with these items. oid are the prints The best versions of the Moorman No. 2 Polar negatives in the pos- made from either of the original high resolution even see, scan, or study them. session of UPI and AP. Dr. Hunt didn’t You can hardly He used the original print which faded 15 years ago. s in the backg round have see the President in the foreground, and image the retain- inclu ding the “assas sin” behin d long since nearly vanished on the grassy knoll, the man behin d the stock ade fence and ing wall other shapes which raise questions as to others on the knoll. The man Willis No. 5 and the Zapru der film is clearl y seen who appears in behind the wall in the Moorman No. 2. Also overlooked is the fact of the Western-most wall edge changing shape depending on which negative was used to create any given specific point. The first Moorman print on the other hand is not now as was orig- inally described by all who saw it before the FBI confiscated it. It has now lost the sixth floor, which was there originally in the photograph as well as the eastern end of the TSBD and the “assassin’s” window. I intended to present evidence that as was the case with the Neely Street photographs, the Moorman pictures as they exist now are fakes. For instance, Mary Moorman took three consecutive photographs. The committee looked at the first and the third of the three and they both show evidence of retouching. None of this was dealt with by Dr. Hunt. Hunt couldn’t see the man behind the wall because he no longer ap- pears in the original print. His entire image has faded to white. As for the Nix film, Hunt couldn’t see a gunflash because the frame corresponding to Zapruder frame No. 312 was not scanned and is the only frame showing the flash. This is the frame just before the head explosion frame. It is doubtful that Dr. Hunt would even know where to look for the muzzle flash even if he had had the correct frame since we have had no interaction at all on this matter. III. Toe Warxer Buyer _ The shot taken at General Walker was referred to several times dur ing the public hearings as being fired by Oswald. This is a terribly mis leading assumption. It is still questionable whether the Mannlicher-Carcano can be linke to Oswald. But even if it was his, it could not have fired the “Walke bullet.” Oswald’s alleged rifle fired 6.5-mm ammunition, coppeé jacketed, while the Walker bullet was a steel jacketed 30.06. ee na has never been linked with another rifle during that perio IV. Timrne anp Number oF SnHors aueh testimony given at the time of the public hearings woul en ape to believe that it was the general consensus of the photographi panel that the timing and number of the shots had been established 297 and that there was little question as to this conclusion, this was of course not the case. The vote was as presented split, but the ballot was not clearly defined. No one was asked if they thought a shot struck before Zapruder film frame number 190, nor were they asked if they felt shots struck both before and after the road sign. One important result of that panel meeting was my discovery of a shot fired 1n the mid-to-late 150’s of the Zapruder film. Seven years ago, I discovered that President Kennedy was respond- ing to a shot that missed by frame 158. But at the panel meeting I found that by frame 163, Governor Connally was also responding to the sound of the same shot. This coupled with the overall timing of the shot sequence of the police tape gives us a whole new perspective of the shot timing. In the face of the current evidence it seems that this is the actual timing and firing order of the shots: 1. From behind. Missed. Fired in the 150’s. Possibly hit the concrete by the manhole cover on the south curb of Elm Street, or the pavement on Elm Street. (There is Warren Commission testi- mony of this.) 2. From the front. Hit the President in the neck. Penetrated deep within the President’s body and was removed during the autopsy by Commander Humes. (See FBI receipt for the bullet.) Struck the President between frames 188 and 189. 3. From behind. Struck the President in the back, 4 inches below the shoulder line to the depth of an inch or an inch and a half and did not traverse the body. This bullet probably fell out of the President’s body either during the time the body was in Parkland Hospital or while enroute to Bethesda for the autopsy. Upon striking the President in the back, the transfer of momentum pushed the President forward and downward by several inches. This is one of the few occurrences on film that can be accurately measured but has gone totally overlooked by the photo panel. ‘The hit occurs at frame 227, and the forward motion lasts for over a half dozen frames. 4, From behind. Hit Governor Connally in the back. There are two possible times for this hit. The first is at frame 227 when the Governor’s right arm spins toward his left. The second occurs at frame 238 when there is a violent drop to the Governor’s right shoulder and his cheeks puff out, his hair becomes disheveled. There is an outside possibility that these two pronounced move- ments may represent separate shots. The first to Connally’s right wrist and the second to his back with either striking his left thigh. V. JosepH Minreer The matter of Joseph Adams Milteer is by no means put to rest by omparing the height of the man in the Altgens photo to Milteer’s nown height or the unknown relative heights of the other people in )he crowd standing near him. ) If the man in the crowd is Milteer it is just the icing on the cake. You have the Miami tapes as well as the Miami police reports and the "BI files on Milteer. He is strongly involved in both the Kennedy nd King cases. He is proof of a conspiracy and that the FBI and 298 Warren Commission participated in an active collaborated coverup by burying all of the Milteer evidence in the National Archives and never mentioning his name even once in the Warren Report or the 26. volumes of evidence. Milteer is a prime suspect in both the John Ken- nedy and Martin Luther King murder plots. | Resting the Milteer case on the height of the crowd man would be a gross error in judgment. VI. Tue Acoustics TEsts There seems to be a problem in the way the acoustics tests were done: 1. Only two firing points were considered for acoustica matching—the “Oswald window” and behind the stockade fence By using the audio signals and echo patterns from only these two points, the testing machinery could eliminate any other shot echo pattern or sound below the dB threshold used, related to shots from behind the retaining wall, the southern knoll, the Dal-Tex building, the Records building, other depository window or the roof, or any other possible firing point from its final con4 clusions thereby destroying the use or value of the tests. 9. By not removing the new overhead road signs and replacj ing the old Stemmons Freeway sign, new elements are introduce that will alter the results of the tests and eliminate from consid eration possible shot sounds and echo patterns altered by thesq new elements. a 3. Different ammunition was used in the testing. First, oldey ammunition of the type allegedly used by Oswald was used Then, newer ammunition was used that gave a different sounc even audibly to the witnesses and the testing machinery is faq more sensitive than the human ear to such changes. In spite of the many inconsistencies in the testing procedure, ther | was still evidence of a possible four shots from at least two differe | directions. It must be noted here that the first acoustical tests done on the Dalle | police tape found very strong evidence of at least seven shots whic} is confirmed by the visual and concrete evidence at the time of t assassination. VII. Rerorr on Issurs Renatinc To THE AUTHENTICITY OF THI Avurorsy X-Rays AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNED# During the public hearings in September, witnesses from the conf mittee’s scientific panels stated that in their opinion the autopsy phd tographs and X-rays of President Kennedy were genuine, citing sud evidence as the fact that the film used was produced in 1968. | The importance of the photographs and X-rays cannot be ovef estimated. Every scientific panel—photographic, medical, acoustiq ballistics, N.A.A., et cetera—all depend upon the autopsy materials fq their testing and conclusions. : The basic conclusions from all except the acoustics panel is th¢ {wo shots struck the President from behind. On the surface it would seem that the autopsy materials bear o ihis conclusion. That, however, may not be the case. 299 There is evidence that raises grave questions about the authenticity of the items being relied upon by the select committee and its panels. Moreover, there is medical data in the photos and X-rays which is apparently being ignored. 1. THE PROBLEM OF AUTHENTICITY The fact that the HSCA panels have been unable to establish in- authenticity of these items may not reflect their authenticity but rather the skill with which they were forged. In considering the matter of authenticity of some of the autopsy photographs, my main concern is that of the large head exit wound and its exact and general location as described by the vast. majority of trained medical personnel at Parkland Hospital and reported by many of the Dallas witnesses. The main issue here is that such a wound may have been photographically eradicated from the only visual record of the President’s body following the assassination via she simple technique of photo-compositing. If done with care, this would be undetectable. _ On this point, some of the photo panel’s tests would be meaning- less. For example, one test the panel claims proves authenticity is that the film in evidence was manufactured in 1968. It seems that if my one were to plot the forging of these pictures that they would not wait until the film used in the other (genuine) autopsy photo- graphs would be out of date, and that they would certainly use the same film that would have been originally used in the entire autopsy series. All this test proves is that the forgeries could have been pro- duced in late 1963 or early 1964. For the record, my visual inspection of the autopsy photographs and X-rays reveals evidence of forgery in four of the photographs: Color chromes No. 42 and No. 43 showing the rear of the head and No. 15 and No. 16 which appear to be the same shots in black and white (made from black and white duplicate negatives of No. 42 and No. 43). Within the circumference of the President’s head, there is an irreg- alar line. Within this line the hair appears black and wet. On the outside of the line it is auburn and completely dry. In later genera- tions of these photographs, a large degree of contrast buildup becomes upparent at the line’s edge and the line becomes clearly defined. This ohenomenon is characteristic of crop lines in matte insert processes ased for retouching and recompositioning of photographs. It is my opinion that these two photographs are forgeries, com- dosites manufactured to eliminate evidence of an exit wound in the "ear of the President’s head. The only method I am aware of that could nave been used to create these composites is known as “soft edge matte nsertion.” (See attachment 1.) The question of the authenticity of these particular photographs is rucial because of the large volume of evidence indicating that at least one shot struck the President in the head from the front, causing an 2xit wound at the rear of the skull. The problem is that this wound, seen by so many in Dallas, does not appear in the autopsy photographs ind X-rays. The most reliable descriptions were those from the Parkland doctors on the day of the murder. Doctors Clark, Jones, Perry, Baxter, Akin, 300 l others all de- McClelland, and Nurses Hutton, Bowron, and severa it at the same scribe that same wound in great detail, and all place of the occipital point in the rear of the President’s head in the area avulsive exit bone. Many said cerebellar tissue protr uded from a large tes a lower rear head exit wound . A partial list wound. This too indica ed as of the many eyewitnesses who describe this wound is includ all these attachment 2 to this memo. It seems highly improbable that witnesses were mistaken. Furthermore, the descriptions of the eyewitnesses who saw Ken- the nedy’s head wound at Parkland are corroborated by those who saw bullet impact upon the head in Dealey Plaza. Secret Service Agent Clint Hill saw a piece of the President’s skull fly from the President’s head and travel toward the rear-left of the car. Mrs. Kennedy attempted to pick up this piece (and indeed from a recently declassified portion of her Warren Commission testimony we can see that she may have picked up a section of skull) and tried to hold it onto the rear of her husband’s head. The next day Billy Harper found a piece of bone in Dealey Plaza. Originally, the “Harper” fragment was identified by a qualified pa- thologist as a section of occipital bone. In addition, there is photographic evidence of a shot exiting from the rear of the President’s head. | Zapruder film frames No. 335 and No. 337 clearly show the result. of the head shot. They are the clearest two frames showing the Presi- dent after the head explosion. I have examined and measured the contours of the President’s head on Zapruder film frames 335 and 337. The rear of the President’s head, in these frames, shows his hair pushed upward and away from the scalp. That indicates the bones underneath were avulsed outward. This matches the description of the wound provided by Dr. McClel- land who said the bones at the rear of the head were “sprung open.” (See attachment 2 for full quote and other descriptions of this wound.) Conclusions _The Dallas observations indicating a rear exit hole cannot be easily dismissed. These accounts were provided by trained medical personnel. It defies belief that so many people, viewing the President from dif- ferent angles at different times, should all describe the same wound condition and position. My own examination of the autopsy photo- graphs of the rear of the head shows a sharp contrast buildup along an irregular line at the rear of President Kennedy’s head. This con- trast buildup could be the result of a photocompositing process where- by another photograph was superimposed on the back of President} Kennedy’s head, thus eliminating evidence of that exit wound. Based upon my observation of that contrast buildup, and the Dallas medical} observations indicating there was a wound there, it is my opinion, as a photo-consultant to the House select committee, that these photo-j graphs are forgeries. 2. LEFT TEMPORAL WOUND There are at least two Parkland Hospital doctors who noted a wound of entry in the President’s left temple. (Dr. Robert N. McClel- land and Dr. Marion T. Jenkins) 301 Dr. McClelland, in his official statement regarding the assassina- tion filled out at 4:45 p.m. on November 22, wrote: “The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple.” (WR, p. 527) Dr. Jenkins, in his testimony to the Warren Commission on March 25, 1964, stated that “* * * I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process.” (H6, p. 48) When informed that no one else had noted such an entrance wound, Dr. Jenkins stated that it might have been blood from some other point. My examination of this area on autopsy photograph No. 29 leads me to believe that Dr. Jenkins was correct on his initial opinion. Close inspection of the left temporal area on the original transpar- ency (but not on any of the later generation duplicates) reveals the presence of a faint but distinct circular hole which I estimate to be approximately 5 or 6 mm in size in the left sideburn approximately 25 to 30 mm above the bottom of the sideburn, and 10 to 15 mm in front of the foremost ear line. (Photos 30 and 31 show much the same area but because of different exposure and clarity of the film, the hole shape is not as evident.) The other photographic and medical panel members who inspected the autopsy items were not familiar with the Kennedy case and the question of a left temporal wound prior to and at the time of their examination of these items and so were probably not looking in that area for any damage. 7 I must point out that on transparency No. 29, the “hole” is visibly very faint with no blood to highlight it to the casual observer. Indeed, if one did not know to look for evidence of this wound, it would simply remain unnoticed. To facilitate future study, I have made a single 8 x 10 glossy print of this area which is at the Archives stored with the original collec- tion. (I made two such photographs: One was not clear because the transparency moved while in the enlarger.) On July 19, 1978, while Dr. Michael Baden was at the Archives examining the X-rays and photographs, and I was attending a meeting of the photo panel, I telephoned Dr. Baden and informed him of the existence of this evidence of a left temporal bullet wound. While still on the telephone with me, Dr. Baden examined the photographs. He said he could locate no wound in the left temple, and that what I was seeing was “a small spot of blood.” From this conversation, I could have concluded that either: (a) Dr. Baden was looking at a blood spot at another point close to the “hole”; or (6) Baden and I both saw the same thing in the left temporal area, but simply disagree as to what it meant. On October 27 T had another opportunity to examine the X-rays and photographs and, on that occasion, I noted again that there was no blood visually related to this wound, raising further question of Dr. Baden’s diagnosis. At that time I also discovered that the skull X-rays “contained data which seem to indicate a hole in the left temple. _ _ On lateral X-rays of the skull, there is a gray spot at the same loca- tion as the “hole” on photo No. 29. There is, however, no evidence of radiating fracture marks on the skull from this point. 302 Conclusion There is photographic and X-ray evidence supporting the observa- tions of the Dallas doctors—McClelland and Jenkins—that there was a.left temporal entrance wound. . I feel it is the committee’ s obligation to have the medical panel re- examine the X-rays and photographs, in the area I have pinpointed, and, if they disagree with my conclusion, explain what this circle rep- resents, if not a bullet hole, and also explain the corresponding image on the X-rays. VIII. Recoverrep Buttet Durtnc JFK Avrtorsy Although there is a great deal of evidence that a bullet was recovered from President Kennedy’s body at the time of the autopsy, none of the evidence of this bullet was ever mentioned in the public hearings. To recap, Warren Commission document No. 371 reveals “one re- ceipt from the FBI for a missile removed during the examination of the body.” An examination of the receipt shows that a bullet was re- moved from the body of President Kennedy during the autopsy in the evening of November 22, 1963. This bullet was handed over to and sioned for by FBI agents Francis X. O’Neill and James W. Sibert. The January 4, 1964, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (vol. 187 No. 1) stated on page 15 that the bullet was re-_ covered during the autopsy. The Washington Post of December 18, 1963, after checking the report with the FBI before publication, stated that a bullet was recov- ered from deep within the President’s shoulder. This was again con- — firmed in the Post on May 29, 1966. The fact of the recovery of this bullet fully destroys the myth of the “single bullet,” and that evidence of an additional gunshot during the assassination was suppressed. Commander Humes removed this bullet but there is no indication from which direction the bullet came. If it was from the front, there had to be at least two assassins. If the bullet came from behind and as the best evidence will show, did not exit the President’s body, con- sidering the number and timing of the shots in any combination, there had to be more than one assassin. The issue has been raised that the bullet or missile may have been a fragment of a bullet or missile. This seems highly unlikely since Sibert and O’Neill were professional enough to know the difference between an entire bullet and a small fragment. In addition to this, the FBI itself did confirm to the Washington Post that it was “a bullet” and not just a fragment. It should be noted that this entire area of discussion occurred many months before the single bullet theory was invented to try to prove the “Jone assassin theory.” ATTACHMENT 1: Sorr Epar Matrs INSERTION Given the present nature of these photographs, the only method that I am aware of that could have been used to alter them is called soft edge matte insertion. 303 The pena die uses a black and white masking process and this is how it works: An original 4 x 5 photograph; that is, transparency would be taken showing the rear of JFK’s head with the exit wound in the center (in this case two, No. 42 and No. 43). Using one at a time, it 1s pin reg- istered and placed in a photographic enlarger along with a pin registered piece of 4 x 5 black and white film called a registered black core matte. This is clear film with a black center in a specific area over the area on the original transparency to be eliminated. The clear fades quickly to the black, not a sharply defined edge, hence the term “soft edge.” This “sandwich” is then projected onto another piece of 4 x 5 Ektrachrome transparency film. In this case the result so far would be the rear of the President’s head with a large blank, black area in the rear. This new piece of film is then put in a light tight container. At this point, another transparency of the back of another head, this one with an entrance bullet hole and hair that matches J.F.K.’s head photographed to the same size, is pin registered with a clear core matte which is a piece of black film tapering to a clear center. This is a con- tact film print of the black core matte and fits exactly in register with the original transparency and the black core matte. This new “sandwich” is then projected in register onto the par- tially exposed Ektachrome. Now the photograph is complete. The final result is what appears to be the rear of the President’s head with a small wound of entry near the top. The same thing is done to the other original in register and the result is a pair of virtually undetectable forgeries of the finest possible quality. The technique would allow the integrity of stereo views. ATTACHMENT 2: REFERENCES TO AN OccrprraL Heap Wounp oF Exit IN WARREN Report (Part or CE 392, Aprenpix VIII, pp. 516-530) Kemp Clark—“Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted.” (p. 517) “There was a large wound in the right occipito- parietal region * * * both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were ex- truding from the wound” (p. 518). Charles Carrico—“Dr. Jenkins attempted to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via pads instituted” (p. 520). Malcolm Perry—“A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted: * *=.*?(p. 521). Charles Baxter—‘“* * * the right temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table * * * (p. 523). Kemp Clark (handwritten at 4:15 p.m.)—“There was a large wound taal in the right occipital extending into the parietal region” p. 525). : M. T. Jenkins—“There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) causing a great defect in the skill plate * * * even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound” (p. 530). Dr. John Ebersole (taped interview with Gil Delaney, Lancaster Intelligencer-Journal) + (a.), March 8, 1978—“knew shot came 42-370 0 - 79 - 20 304 from the back or side because the back of his head was blown off.” (Ebersole now says he was misquoted. ) In an interview with Art Smith, Chester, Pa., Ebersole said the back of the skull was intact “except for maybe three small fragments.” Ronald Jones—“What appeared to be an exit wound in the pos- terior portion of skull” (6H56). . Perry—‘“A large avulsive injury of the right occipital area (6H11). _ Charles Baxter—“A large gaping wound in the back of the skull * * * literally the right side of his head was blown off” (6H 40-41). Dr. McClelland—‘As I took the position at the head of the table * * * I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been blasted. It had been shattered apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out” (6H33). Nurse Pat Hutton—“Pressure bandage was no use * * * because of the massive opening on the back of the head.” Dr. Gene Akins—“Back of the right occipital parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance protruding” (6H65). Dr. Clark—* * * examined the wound in the back of the President’s | head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, tee and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed” 0). Dr. Peters—“We saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound” (6H71). Diana Bowron—Parkland Hospital nurse. [Warren Commission testimony follows :] 305 BOWRON, DIANA - TESTIMONY before Warren Commission These are some of the most relevant excerpts from the testimony of Parkland hospital nurse Diana Bowron who was the first trained medical person to observe the President upon arrival at Parkland hospital and observed the President face down in the car. She looked directly at the wound of exit in the rear of the President's head. TESTIMONY OF DIANA HAMILTON BOWRON ¢ ET on The testimony of Diana Hamilton Bowron was taken at 2:05 p.m., Spec- March 24, 1964, at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Arlen ter, assistant counsel of the President’s Commission, Mr. Svecrer. And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition? Miss Bowron. He was moribund—he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy’s knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When IT went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of lis head. Mr. Seecrer, You saw the condition of his what? Miss Bowron. The back of his head. Mr. Specrer. And what was that condition? Miss Bowron. Well, it was very bad—you know. Mr. Srecrer. low many holes did you see? Mixs Bownon. I just saw one large hole. Mr. Specter. Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole? Miss Bowron. No, sir. Mr. Srecrer. Did you notice any other wound on the President's body? Miss Bowron. No, sir. ~ Mr. Sprcerer. And what action did you take at that time, if any? Miss Bownon. 1 helped to lift his head and Mrs. Kennedy pushed me away dnd lifted his head herself onto the cart and so I went around back to the cart aud walked off with it. We ran on with it to the trauma room and she ran beside us. And an excerpt from a newspaper article labled as "Bowron exhibit No. 3. in Warren Commission volume #19. Ssbpy S degrwe ee serw we see seews Diana, who was trained at Hope Hospital, Salford, said: “I realised who the man in the car was as soon as I saw Jackie Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy was slumped : Peril gs Fes ree , forward in his seat—and so was Mr. Connally. bei BV oh al | Robert J. Groden Photo Consultant, H.S.C.A. 306 ATTACHMENT 8: SUSPECTED FIRING PoINTs IN THE ASSASSINATION OF Preswent Joun F. Kennepy, AS Tuey Re.atre To THE PHOTO- GRAPHIC EVIDENCE There are nearly 2 dozen suspected firing points in Dealey Plaza that have been raised by Warren report critics through the years. Of these, several are worthy of close inspection for they may be candidates as probable sources of shots within the plaza. Some of the 2 dozen: 1. The TSBD easternmost sixth floor window facing south (the “Oswald” window). 2. The TSBD roof. 3. The TSBD seventh floor. 4. The TSBD fourth floor, third pair from the left (west) end. 5. The TSBD westernmost pair of sixth floor windows facing south. 6. The Dal-Tex building second floor. 7. The Dal-Tex building third floor. 8. The Dal-Tex building upper floor (any of the top three). 9. Dal-Tex roof. 10. The county records building roof. 11. The county records building second floor. 12. The stockade fence on top of the “grassy knoll”. 13. The cement retaining wall in front of the stockade fence. 14. In front of the cement structure on the knoll at the end of the stockade fence (northeastern end). 15. The railroad overpass. 16. A storm drain at the north curb of Elm Street. 17. The “umbrella man”. 18. The “south knoll” (the grassy knoll on the south side of the plaza on Commerce Street). _Nos. 1 thru 11 were to the President’s rear, 12 thru 16 were to his right front, 17 started at the front and ended to the rear as the car passed by, and 18 was to the President’s left front. 1. Was almost certainly a firing point. If the “Oswald” window was used during the assassination, whether by Lee Oswald or any one else (this remains to be proven), it is logical to assume that there would be from this window. This would be consistent with a prearranged scenario as well with the official version of the crime. The film taken by Charlse Bronson may show a dummy snipers nest for a cover story being constructed just 7 minutes before the shots were fired. 2. and 3. are possible alternatives to 1 but with far less opportunity for interruption by a bystander as was always a possibility at the “Os- wald” window. There were reports of a rifle being found at 2 and 3 was not even searched. 4. Is considered by Dr. Cyril Wecht because of the angle of bullet trajectory from that point. _5. Is the point where witness Arnold Rowland saw two men with a rifle just before the assassination but thought that they were Secret Service agents. There was also what appeared to be a bullet mark on the north sidewalk of Elm Street (since removed) that lined up with this window. 307 6. Because of a photograph taken by A.P. photographer, James Alt- gens, seeming to show a rifle shaped object protruding from the second floor window of the Dal-Tex building, several Warren report critics (including myself) felt that this was probably a firing point for one or two of the shots. The committee has made available to me the original Altgens negative. Using my technique of vario-density cynexing, I was able to enhance the image in the window to the point of clarity where the figure in the window is now identifiable as a black man leaning on the window sill with both hands, and with no gun in view. 7. Has been charged as a firing point for the same reason as window 6. Using the VDC technique. I feel that the window was closed and I can find no evidence of any shots from that window. 8., 9. and 10. are strong interchangeable possibilities for one or two of the shots from the rear. Either President Kennedy’s or Gov- ernor Connally’s back wounds or the President’s rear entering head wound. These angles are much closer to the alleged trajectory (rear to front) than the depository points 1 to 5. 11. Only one man. Hugh McDonald, has mentioned this as a firing point. Logistically, it simply could not have been. The angles and line of sight won’t line up to any traceable shot. 12. The committee’s acoustic panel has presented corroborative ev1- dence to support the photographic evidence that this was in fact a fir- ‘ing point. A figure can be seen in both the second Moorman Polaroid photograph (clearly showing a figure in the area directly behind the stockade fence, 8 feet. to the left of the corner of the fence), and the closing few dozen frames of the Zapruder film also seem to show a figure in the same spot. Independently, the sound tapes from the stuck transmitter place a firing point in this exact position, as do a great deal of eye and ear witnesses to the shooting. 18. Appears in a long list of films and photographs: (a) the fifth Phil Willis slide; (0) the Hugh Betzner photo corresponding to Willis No. 5; (c) the Abraham Zapruder film frames in the area surrounding and including No. 413; (d) the Orville Nix film in shadow near the left edge of the retaining wall; and (e) the Marie Muchmore film for one frame at the extreme top of the frame. After the shooting. a large crowd of spectators chased this man, who some thought was a gunman, back into the parking lot where he dis- appeared, and where a man with false Secret Service identification was encountered. In items a and c, a shape appearing to be a weapon or rifle-shaped object is noted being held by this man. The HSCA photo panel has determined that this is indeed a human shape. 14. Appears in the Orville Nix film for an entire sequence and can be seen in motion. Stereo pairs show this shape to have three dimen- sions, and to be in the plaza in front of the concrete structure with the “left arm” portion extending beyond the edge of the wall. There are similar patches of light and shadow visible on the wall in the next se- quence that give the impression that this shape was only shadows. It was not. These remaining shadows lack the coloring and texture of the Image itself. 15. There is no photographic evidence of an assassin at this point. 16. There is no photographic evidence of an assassin at this point. 17. It seems unlikely that a shot. could have come from this point. 308 18. Two Dallas doctors noted an entrance wound in the President’s left temple. I have also noted in autopsy photograph No. 29 and the front view X-ray that there seems to be such a bullet wound in ev1- dence. If there was, then this probably came from the area of the southern grassy knoll. The only photographic evidence of a shot from ~ this point is the Cancellare photograph. It shows a shape that appears to be a man holding what appears to be a rifle on top of the knoll near a tree just seconds after the shots were fired. However, this shape is far too vague to be considered proof of a gunman and must be con- sidered with its limitations. | It is my opinion that Nos. 1, 9, 10, 12, 18, and 18 are the most likely — candidates for firing points as well as either 2, 3, 4, 5, or 8 (one of these). It is also my opinion that only four of the above or at the most five are truly candidates for firing points and that No. 14 was a prob- ability who never fired a shot. The rest on the list I cannot believe to be points where shots came from on the basis of photographic evidence as well as other physical evidence. ATTACHMENT 4: Memo—Rosert J. GRODEN TO JANE DOWNEY Supsectr—THE CHaritEs Bronson Fitm Fersruary 25, 1979. Earlier this year, I inspected and optically enhanced the regular | 8-mm color motion picture of the assassination of President John | F. Kennedy taken by Mr. Charles Bronson. There are four scenes of importance in this film: , 1. Before the motorcade arrived, approximately 7 minutes before the shooting. 2. The motorcade on Main Street. 3. The motorcade on Houston Street. 4. The motorcade on Elm Street showing the President at the moment of the head explosion. During the moments before the President arrived in Dealey Plaza, a bystander experienced an “epileptic seizure” and an ambulance was summoned. While the ambulance was present on Houston Street, Mr. Bronson filmed 8 seconds of footage from his position at the south- west corner of the Main-Houston intersection. He was standing on a pedestal near the corner, and his camera was running at 12 frames per second to preserve film (instead of the usual 18 fps). At the upper left corner of the film frame for this entire sequence, Mr. Bronson photographed the two easternmost pairs of windows of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, including the window that Lee Oswald was supposed to be in at that moment. Close inspection and optical enhancement reveals definite move- ment in at least two and probably three of the windows in question. The two most obvious are the same two windows (Nos. 1 and 3) that show movement in the Robert Hughes film at the beginning of the actual firing sequence. Also, the Hughes and Bronson films both show the man in window No. 1 to be wearing a bright reddish shirt (or so it appears) and the man in window No. 3 to be wearing a neutral- colored shirt. 309 The man in window No. 1 is moving rapidly back and forth, and the man in No. 3 seems to be crouched down at the window and rocking on his toes in much the manner of a baseball catcher. The shape in window No. 2 is slightly less distinct than the other two. I originally felt that this “man” was actually the man in window No. 1 leaning back and forth, probably moving boxes around to construct what would later be called “the sniper’s nest.” I now feel that this is a distinctly different person who is probably handing boxes to man No. 1. As you know, I was sorry to hear the wording of the representative of the photo panel who testified that the moving shapes in these windows could not be identified as human one way or another from the Hughes’ film. The fact that the shapes are indeed moving and stereo views show them to be well within the windows but not in as far as the boxes in the background, and that there is nothing else that these shapes could possibly be except human movement, should at least have - prompted the wording to allow for a fairer comprehension on the part of another party concerned with the issue at a later date as is now the case of the Bronson film. When the subject was first raised as to the men in the windows, the press quoted the panel as stating that the Hughes film showed no one in the windows. This was not the case. So I would suggest the wording in any analysis of the Bronson film to be more exacting. I am delighted to learn of the computer work that Mr. John Sigalos, the attorney for Mr. Bronson is going to have done independently, and I suggest another look at the Hughes’ film. ATTACHMENT 5: Memo—Rosert J. GRODEN TO JANE DOWNEY SuspsEcT—THE DitLArRD NEGATIVES Frsruary 25, 1979. I have just examined the two Dillard negatives showing the so- called “Oswald” window. I am sorry to report that the negatives are both severely damaged, but in different ways. Negative No. 8, which is the more familiar of the two, and is a wide- angle photograph, appears to be coated on its emulsion side with a coating of some type. It is possible that what this is is the emulsion itself in a badly damaged condition perhaps as a result of the radio- active testing done for the committee. The image on the negative is also in very poor condition, and appears to show the effects of a phenomenon called reticulation, This looks like small horizontal and vertical lines running throughout the image area and extending into the marginal area surrounding the picture area itself. I cannot determine for sure whether the crosshatching occurs in the emulsion itself or if it is on the coating (if indeed the “coating” is a foreign addition to the negative and not just damaged emulsion). Negative No. 24 also has this problem but in addition, the negative has an area where the emulsion has been rubbed off of the base, It appears that the négative was subjected to an intensely hot liquid and rubbed to remove the radioactive coating which was applied for the analytical work done for the committee. It seems that at this time, 310 for an the wet emulsion was actually smeared by an outside force, opinion — area of the image has been removed from the base. It is my | that this damage is irreversible. be I would also like to point out the appearance of what seems to — a human figure at the extreme western window on the sixth floor of the TSBD in negative No. 8. Negatives No. 8 and No, 24 were exposed a at about the same time but from two different cameras (No. 8 with wide-an gle lens and No. 24 with a telepho to lens). I would estimat e that both of these photographs were exposed within 10 seconds of the last gunshots, and if the figure in the western end window is a human figure (where eyewitness Arnold Rowland saw a human figure standing) we have more proof of a larger conspiracy. If your computer enhanced negative(s) show this area, I strongly suggest inspecting this area from it/them. Due to the deterioration of the original negative, I cannot be sure as to what this figure is, If the computer duplicate negatives are paler, it would definitely be worth examining them to study the shape. As for the “Oswald” window, I can see no human figure in either negative. ATTACHMENT 6: THE ALTGENS Doorway Man Issue The main items used by me in determining the true identity of the man in the TSBD doorway in the fifth Altgens photograph were: The John Martin film original.—T his camera original, when. viewed under the correct lighting conditions, shows that the degree | of facial growth on Billy Lovelady was not as great as it originally appeared in the DCA release prints; The Robert Hughes film original.—This color film shows the color of the shirt that Mr, Lovelady is wearing. The colors seem to be con- Srtgue ek the shirt worn by Mr. Lovelady in the Martin film (above) ; The Mark Bell film original.—This film was taken at a closer range than the Hughes film and was taken at the same time. It clearly shows the color and pattern of the shirt worn by the doorway man. | It is consistent with the shirt worn by Mr. Lovelady; and The James Altgens negative original—The photograph that | started it all is the best evidence as to the identity of the man pic- tured in the doorway of the TSBD. The pattern of light and dark plaid is heightened through the technique of vario-density cynex- ing directly onto Kodak 5302 fine grain release positive to give a full range of contrast and density results for careful high magnifica- tion study. Using this process, which I developed several years ago for this purpose, it can be seen, even by a layman, that the pattern is indeed that of Mr. Lovelady. This technique yields images perhaps two to four times clearer than conventional photographic methods. Rosert J. GRODEN, Photographic consultant, HSCA. REFERENCES The (1) Richard Sprague, “The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: and Auto- Application of Computers to the Photographie Evidence,’ Computers mation, May 1970, p. 34. Dell Pub- (2) See, for example, Mark Lane, “Rush to Judgment,” (New York: the Fact” lishing Co., 1976), pp. 344-356; Sylvia Meagher, “Accessories After Robert J. (New York: Vintage Books, 1976), pp. 3-35; F. Peter Model and 1977), Groden, “JFK: The Case for Conspiracy” (New York: Manor Books, Inc., pp. 124-165, 186-189; J. Gary Shaw, “Cover-Up: The Governmental Conspiracy To Conceal the Facts About the Public Execution of John Kennedy” (published by the author, 1976), pp. 832-39; Richard Sprague, See ref., 1, pp. 29-60; Josiah Thompson, “Six Seconds in Dallas” (New York: Bernard Geis Associates, 1967) ; Harold Weisberg, “Whitewash II: The FBI-Secret Service Cover-Up” (pub- lished by the author 1967), pp. 128-249; Harold Weisberg, “Photographie White- wash: Suppressed Kennedy Assassination Pictures” (published by the author 1967). (3) J. C. Dainty and R. Shaw, “Image Science” (New York: Academic Press, 1976), pp. 116-150. (4) See, for example, Harry Andrews and Bob R. Hunt, “Nigital Image Restora- tion’ Englewood, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1977). (5) C. Mees, “The Theory of the Photographic Process” (New York: McMillan Jo0., 1954). (6) See ref. 3, Dainty anc Shaw, p. 48. (7) Bob R. Hunt, “Digital Image Processing,” IEEE Proceedings, vol. 63 (Apr. 1975), pp. 693-708. (8) A. Oppenheim and R. Schafer, Digital Signal Processing, (Englwood, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975). (9) See ref. 4, Andrews and Hunt, pp. 61-89. Bay J. Goodman, Introduction to Fourier Optics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 68). (11) Research Proposal, “Autoradiographic Intensification of Photographic Mvidence,” prepared for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, by en tord Research Institute International, Mar. 3, 1978 (J. F. K. Document No. 309). (12) Report of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964), p. 19 (hereinafter cited as the Warren report). (13) Ibid. (14) Ibid, p. 111. (15) Ibid., p. 115. (16) Ibid. (17) Ibid., p. 117. (18) Ibid., p. 106. (19) Ibid. (20) See ref. 2, Model and Groden, pp. 124-157, and Thompson, pp. 59-79. (21) Ibid.: see also Lane, ref. 2, pp. 69-80, and Meagher, pp. 27-35. (22) See ref. 2,Thompson, pp. 216-18. (23) Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, May 6, 1964. Hearings before the ?resident’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964), vol. 5, p. 153 (hereinafter 5 Warren Sommission Hearings, 153). (24) Testimony of Gov. John Connally, April 2, 1964—Warren Commission Hearings, pp. 182-33. (25) See ref. 23, Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, p. 153. (26) Scientific Report of the Kennedy Assassination Forensic Pathology Panel, Appendix to the hearings before the Select Committee on Assassinations, U.S. House of Representatives, 95th Congress, 2nd session (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979), vol. VII, pars. 294-343 (hereinafter J. F. (311) 312 pars. HSCA-JFK Hearings, VII) ; see also K. Forsenic Pathology Panel Report, Evidence Panel Report. 127-141 of this report, the Photographic f ; F—133). (27) See fig. 11-10 (J. F. K. exhibit k irearm s Panel, Append ix inatio n (28) Scientific Report of the Kennedy Assass tee on Assassinations, U.S. House of to the hearings before the Select Commit (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern- Representatives, 95th Congress, 2nd session Printi ng Office, 1979), vol. VII, (herei nafter J. F. K. Firearms Panel Report ment ; , VII, HSCA-J. F. K. hearings). s of Record ed Sounds Relati ng to the Assassination of Presi- (29) An Analysi the House Select Committee on As- dent John F. Kennedy, a report prepared for Mark R. Weiss and Ernest Aschke nasy, February 1979, vol. VIII, sassinations, by after Weiss and Asehke nasy report) . sec, 4.2.3 (herein aphic Evidence Panel. (30) See pp. 69-70 of this report of the Photogr n (New York: Holt Rhine- (31) C. Landis and W. Hunt, the Startle Reactio hart, 1939). (32) Ibid. (33) See fig. II-10 (J. F. K. Exhibit No. F133). aphic Evidence Panel. (34) See para. 69-70, of this Report of the Photogr Mrs. John B. Connally, (35) Warren Report, pp. 49-50; testimony of Mr. and ' ’ Sept. 6, 1978, I HSCA—J. F. K. hearings, p. 42. Assassination of President (36) Analysis of Recorded Sounds Relating to the House Select Committee on John F. Kennedy, Report No. 3947, prepared for the 1979 (hereinafter Assassinations by Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc., January Bolt Beranek & Newman Report No. 3947). and Rec: (37) Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations: Findings 2nd session ( Wash- ommendations, U.S. House of Representatives, 95th Congress, IA1 (hereinaftex ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979), Section SCA report). (38) Bolt Beranek & Newman Report No. 3947, table II, pp. 61, 75. (39) Ibid., p. 33. (40) The Harper Encyclopedia of Science (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), Vol. 4, p. 1196. (41) Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago: Wm. Benton Publishers, 1970), p. 533. (42) Ibid. (43) Photogrammetric Analysis of Zapruder and Nix Movie Film, a report prepared for the House Select Committee on Assassinations by the U.S. Geological Survey, November 1978 (hereinafter USGS Report) (J. F. K. Document No. 013633). (44) Warren Report, pp. 92-117. (45) See ref. 26, J. F. K. Forensic Pathology Panel Report, para. 294-304. (46) See ref. 48, USGS Report. (47) See ref. 26, J. F. K. Forensic Pathology Panel Report, para. 236-67. (48) Memorandum of G. Robert Blakey, Feb. 22, 1979, V House Select Com- mittee on Assassinations—J. F. K. hearings, 723. (49) See para. 97-98, of this report of the Photographic Evidence Panel. (50) Ibid., para. 69-70. (51) Zapruder Film Analysis, a report prepared for the House Select Commit- a sre ee ak by Frank Scott, Aug. 15, 1978 (J. F. K. Document No. ( 5 (52 ) Outside Contact Report with Robert Croft, Sept. 11, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations, (J. F. K. Document 012578). (53) See ref. 51, Scott Report. (54) “Displacement of Cutaneous Landmarks of Anterior Neck with Head Soe ae Pt Meat cate ek prepared for the House Committee on Assas- ‘ment No, 013002). e Fk ivil Aeromedica i nstitute, July 14, 1978 (J. F. K. Docu ; (55) Ibid. (56) See ref. 48, USGS Report. Aaa ab ele args from Dr. Michael Baden to the House Select Committee on ssinations, Sept. 8, 1978 (J. F. K. Document No. 011872). : (58) Limousine drawing dimensioned from the original body draft by manu- gern oe Rati ola tle July 24, 1978 (J. F. K. Document No. 010113). (60) See ine ‘a ba). F. K. Forensic Pathology Panel report, paras. 272-289. S ; olt Beranek & Newman Report No. 3947. es ) Ibid; see paras. 108-109, of this report of the Photographic Evidence 313 (62) Ibid. (63) Ibid. (64) See ref. 87, House Select Committee on Assassinations report. (65) “Warren Report,” p. 19. (66) Ibid., pp. 122-129. Committee on (67) Testimony of Jack D. White, Sept. 14, 1978, II House Select tions—J. F. K. Hearings, 341-344; letter and photograph ic analysis Assassina ions, comments from Fred Newcomb to the House Select Committee on Assassinat Mar. 7, 1977 (J. F. K. Document No. 00913). F. Jenkins and H. White, “Rundamentals of Optics’ (New York: Mc- (68) Graw-Hill, 2d ed., 1950), sec. 3.4, p. 39. (69) “Warren Report,” p. 79. (70) Outside contact report with Thomas Alyea, Sept. 18, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations (J. F. K. Document No. 001769). (71) Staff report and photographs, Nov. 14, 1977, House Select Committee on Assassinations (J. F. K. Document No. 003295). (72) CE 139, 16 Warren Commission Hearings, 512; CE 1303-04, 22 Warren Commission Hearings, 480; CE 737, 17 Warren Commission Hearings, Bul; testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, April 23, 1964, 4 Warren Commission Hear- ings, 280-281; CE 747, 17 Warren Commission Hearings, §22. (73) ‘Warren Report,” p. 129. (74) See ref. 67. (75) Manual of Photogrammetry, vols. I and II (3d ed., 1966), American So- ciety of Photogrammetry. (76) Outside contact report with C. S. McCamy, May 23, 1978 (J. F. K. Docu- ment No. 008621). (77) See ref. 67. (78) “Warren Report,” p. 127. (79) See ref. 2. (80) See refs. 3 and 4. (81) See paras. 33-34 and 89-41 of this report of the Photographic Evidence Panel. (82) ‘Warren Report,” pp. 18-19. (83) Testimony of Tom C. Dillard, Apr. 1, 1964, 6 Warren Commission Hear- ings, 164. (84) Staff interview of James W. Powell, Jan. 12, 1978, House Select Comunit- tee on Assassinations (J. F. K. Document No. 004644). (85) FBI interview of Robert J. E. Hughes, Nov. 30, 1963 ;CE 2591, 25 Warren Commission Hearings, 873. (86) See ref. 88, Dillard testimony. (87) See ref. 84, Powell interview. (88) Letter from Dr. P. G. Roetling to the House Select Committee on Assas- sinations, July 31, 1978 (J.F.K. Document No. 010433). (89) “Photographic Image Production and Analysis,” a report prepared by the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) for the House Select Committee on Assassinations’ Photographic Evidence Panel, July 16, 1978, pp. 33-34 (J.F.K. - Document No. 014322). (90) Letter from Stanford Research Institute International to the House - Select Committee on Assassinations, Autoradiographic Intensification of Photo- graphic Evidence, July 14, 1978, P.O. 65466 (J.F.K. Document No. 010025). (91) Reports prepared for the House Select Committee on Assassinations’ Photographic Evidence Panel: (1) University of Southern California Image Processing Institute (USCIPI), “(Computer Processing of Kennedy Assassination Photographic Evidence,” July 1978, pp. 7-10 (J.F.K. Document No. 009716) ; (2) The Aerospace Corp., Digital Image Processing Analysis of Photographie Evi- dence Relating to the John F. Kennedy Assassination, December 1, 1978, pp. 19-21 (J.F.K. Document No. 013712). (92) See ref. 91, Aerospace report, pp. 22-32. (93) Letter from the Aerospace Corp. to the House Select Committee on Assas- sinations, December 11, 1978 (J.F.K. Document No. 014205) ; letter from the House Select Committee on Assassinations to the U.S. Attorney General, January 8,1979 (J.F.K. Document No. 014710). (94) Statement of Special Agent Paul E. Landis, Jr., November 30, 1963, CE 1024, 18 Warren Commission Hearings, 753; see ref. 2, Thompson, “Six Seconds in Dallas,” pp. 23-26. (95) See for example, Model and Groden, ref. 2; and Sprague, ref. 2. ol4 (96) Testimony of Phillip L. Willis, July 22, 1964, 7 Warren Commission — Hearings, 493. (97) FBI Interview of M. A. Moorman, November 23, 1968, (CE 1426), 22 Warren Commission Hearings, 838-39. (98) Testimony of Leo J. Gauthier, May 6, 1964, 5 Warren Commission Hear- ings, 137. (99) Ibid. ; see ref. 96, Willis testimony, pp. 498-94. (100) See ref. 91, USCIPI report, part I, the Black Dog Debate (J.F.K. Docu- ment No. 009716). (101) See ref. 4, Andrews and Hunt, pp. 126-46. (102) See ref. 91, Aerospace report and USCIPI report. (103) Ibid. (104) See for example, Model and Groden, ref. 2; and Thompson, ref. 91. (105) See ref. 36, Bolt Beranek & Newman. (106) See ref. 89, RIT report, p. 35. (107) See ref. 91, Aerospace report. (108) See ref. 2, Model and Groden. (109) See ref. 91, Aerospace report; letter from Los Alamos Scientific Labora- tory to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, August 14, 1978 (J.F.K. Document No. 010855) . (110) See ref. 4, Andrews and Hunt, pp. 126-146. (111) See ref. 91, Aerospace report. (112) See ref. 4, Andrews and Hunt, pp. 193-98; see ref. 109, letter from Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. (113) W. K. Pratt, Digital Image Processing (New York: Wiley & Sons, 1978), p. 641. (114) Nia Film Analysis, Itek Corp., Lexington, Mass. (1967). (115) Ibid. (116) See ref. 2, Model and Groden. (117) Letter and report from the University of California Los Alamos Scien- tific Laboraitory to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, June 27, 1978 (J.F.K. Document No. 009636). (118) See ref. 48, USGS report. (119) ‘See ref. 117, letter and report from the University of California Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. : (120) Sears and Zemansky, University Physics, Addison Wesley (1957). (121) Letter from the University of California Los Alamos Scientific Labora- tory to B. Hunt August 7, 1978, on the “Man-in-Bushes questions” (J.F.K. Docu- ment No. 014487). (122) See ref. 113. (123) Ibid. (124) See ref. 121, letter from the University of California Los Alamos Scien- tific Laboratory. zn ae ) Testimony of R. S. Stovall, April 3, 1964, 7 Warren Commission hearings, Be 126) Testimony of Guy F. Rose, April 8, 1964, 7 Warren Commission hearings, (127) Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, September 1, 1968, 15 Warren Com- mission hearings, 693; but see also Rose testimony, ref. 126 (Dallas police found two negatives that showed Oswald holding a rifle in his hand, wearing a pistol at his hip) ; executive session testimony of R. L. Studebaker, October 5, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations (J.F.K. Document No. 014695) ; executive session testimony of John Grizzaffi, October 5, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations (J.F.K. Document No. 014699) . (128) Report of Captain Fritz: Interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald, Novem- ber 23, 1963, Warren Report, pp. 608-09; see ref. 126, Rose testimony. (129) FBI interview of Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald, December 3, 1963 (CE 1401), 22 Warren Commission hearings, 751. (130) Ibid. (131 ) Testimony of Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald, February 8, 1964, 1 Warren Com- mission hearing, 15. (1382) FBI interview of Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald, Feb. 22, 1964 (CE 1404), 22 Warren Commission hearings, 785. (133) Testimony of W. J. Waldman, May 20, 1964, 7 Warren Commission hear- ings, 365; Warren report, p. 128. ; (134) See ref. 127, Shaneyfelt testimony, p. 692. (135) See ref 181, Mrs. Oswald testimony, pp. 15-16, 118. 315 (136) Warren report, p. 128. (137) Testimony of Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald, June 11, 1964, 5 Warren Com- mission hearings, 405. (138) Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, Apr. 23, 1964, 4 Warren Commis- sion hearings, 284. pp. (139) Warren report, pp. 127, 592-597 ; see ref. 138, Shaneyfelt testimony, 288-89. (140) Ibid. : (141) See Shaneyfelt exhibits 2-18, 21 Warren Commission hearings, 443. (142) See ref. 188, Shaneyfelt testimony, pp. 290-94. (143) Ibid,, pp. 281-82. (144) See ref. 2, Lane pp. 356-362; Model anl Groden, pp. 190-92; Meagher, pp. 200-09; Shaw, pp. 47-50; testimony of Jack D. White, Sept. 14, 1978, 9 House Select Committee on Assassinations—J.F.K. hearings, 322-40. (145) Syndicast Services videotape interview with Malcolm Thompson, as seen in BBC_TV film, The Assassination of President Kennedy * * * What Do We Know Now That We Didn't Know Then, Mar. 7, 1978 (J.F.K. Document No. 006039). (146) Ibid. (147) See ref. 129. (148) See ref. 181, Mrs. Oswald testimony, p. 16. (149) Testimony of Mrs. Marguerite Oswald, Feb. 10, 1964, I Warren Com- mission hearings, 146-48. (150) Staff summary of interview with Mrs. G. Dees, Jan. 5, 1977, House Select Committee on Assassinations (J.F.K. Document 004030). (151) Receipt of subpenaed photograph, Apr. 5, 1977 (J.F.K. Document No. 001145). _ (152) Copy of manuscript, Apr. 7, 1977 (J.F.K. Document No, 007503). (153) Outside contact report with Richard S. Stovall, Apr. 14, 1978 (J.F.K. Document No. 007503). (154) See ref. 125. (155) See ref. 151. (156) See ref. 150. (157) See ref. 153 ; See ref. 127, Studebaker testimony. (158) See para, 39-41, Scientific Report of the Photographic Evidence Panel. (159) See ref. 127. (160) See ref. 138, Shaneyfelt testimony. (161) H. C. McKay, Three-Dimensional Photography, Principles of Stereo- scopy (New York: American Photographic Publishing Co., 1953), pp. 1-11. (162) Testimony of C. S. McCamy, Sept. 15, 1978, II, House Select Committee on Assassinations—J.F.K. hearings, 397-98; Manual of Photogrammetry, vols. I and II (3d ed., 1966), American Society of Photogrammetry. (163) See ref. 137, Mrs. L. H. Oswald testimony. (164) The FBI conducted a similar series of tests for the Warren Commission ; see ref. 138. (165) The Oswald Backyard Photographs, a report to the House Select Com- _ mittee on Assassinations by Dr. Leslie Stroebel, Mr. Andrew Davidhazy and Dr. - Ronald Francis, pars. 447-450, Addendum B to the Scientific Report of the Photo- graphic Evidence Panel, Appendix to the Hearings before the Select Committee on Assassinations, U.S. House of Representatives, 95th Cong., 2d sess. (Wash- - ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979). volume VI, pars. 445-511 (hereinafter RIT technical report). (166) Ibid., pars. 445-455. (167) Ibid. (168) Ibid. (169) Ibid., pp. 458-459. (170) Deposition of Marina Oswald Porter, Aug. 9, 1978, House Select Com- mittee on Assassinations, pp. 64-65 (J.F.K. Document 013153). (171) See ref. 165, RIT Technical Report, pars. 475-478; ref. 91, USCIPI report, pp. 1-7; ref. 91, the Aerospace Report, pp. 1-9, 13-18. (172) See ref. 171, RIT Technical Report, pars. 466-67. i ATs) See ref. 91, USCIPI report, pp. 1-7; and the Aerospace Report, pp. —9, 13-18. (174) See ref. 2, Model and Groden, p. 192. (175) See ref. 145. 316 pp. 190-91; (176) See ref. 2, Lane, p. 361; Meagher, p. 208; Model and Groden, Shaw, pp. 48-49. (177) See pars. 491-92, Photographic Evidence Panel Report. (178) Cameras are bound by the principles of projective geometry, the basis Pro- for the vanishing point concept. (See R- M. Winger, “An Introduction to jective Geometry”), Dover Publishers, Inc., 1962.) (179) Model and Groden, p. 191. (180) Outside Contact Report with Everett Merritt, June 1, 1978 House Select Committee on Assassinations (J.F.K. Document 009036) . (181) See ref. 145. (182) See ref. 91, USCIPI Report, p. re (183) See para. 484-85, Photographie Evidence Panel Report. (184) Letter from Fred T. Newcomb to House Select Committee on Assassina- tions, March 11, 1977 (J. F. K. Document 000913). (185) See ref. 145. (186) See ref. 184; Testimony of Jack D. White, II the House Select Commit- tee on Assossinations—J. F. K. Hearings, 323. (187) See para. 499-508, Photographic Evidence Panel Report. (188) See para. 201-02, Photographic Evidence Panel Report. (189) See ref. 2, Meagher, p. 208; letter and analysis from Jack D. White to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, September 4, 1978, p. 31 (J. F. K. Document 0113862). (190) Testimony of Jack D. White, September 14, 1978, II House Select Com- mittee on Assassinations—J. F. K. Hearings, pp. 341-4. (191) Ibid. (192) See ref. 184. Testimony of Joseph P. McNally, September 14, 1978, II House Select Committee on Assassinations—J. F. K. Hearings, 372-76. (193 ) Staff interview of Malcolm Thomson, September 1, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations (J. F. K. Document 011177). (194) Letter from Major J. M. Pickard to House Select Committee on Assas- sinations, January 4, 1978 (J. F. K. Document 004572). (195) These discrepancies are discussed in Thompson, “Six Seconds in Dallas,” ref, 2, pp. 40-58, 99-114, and 196-213; See Warren Report, pp. 59-60 and 85-95. Ms(ce Clark Panel Review of Photographs, X-ray Films, Documents and Other atts“aaa ae pease Wounding of President John F. Kennedy (1968) (J. F. K. (197) See ref. 26, J. F. K. Forensic Pathology Panel Report, H - rer i Ss Sp ce ee ak ¥.. K. Hearings, pakek 151-61. Cava CDCI. BROKb | etter from Dr. G. M. McDonnel to House Sele i - sinations, August 4, 1978 (J. F. K. Document 010585) ry to caomtied? (Otya 4 Ibid. 200) Charles Wilbur, “Medicolegal Investigati f i aon Murder” (Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas Priehae as7eit ny hy . ) “re J.dag: B&B Boswell, J. H. Ebersole and J. 'T. Stringer, ‘“Report nspection by Naval Medical Staff on November 1, 1966, at National Archives o ais and Photographs of Autopsy of President John F. Kennedy,” 1966; : aie iat esnt Fisher, R. H. Morgan and A. Moritz, “Panel Review of Photo- a y Films, Documents and Other Evidence Pertaining to the Fatal ounding of President John F. Kennedy on No Texd8/" 1968, Washingtor, D.O:: (202) Testimony of Mabe Sonar eae ae National’ bere, Archives,” PF il! 0B.17 uineta i : ings, 517. SW. Altgens, July 22, / 1964, ; Warren Commissionpeta Hear- ar (203) Weisberg, Weisberg, pit H: linet ‘“ heer me:peee Documents,” errrcitation to a report in Scott, P., P. Hoch andR.: Stetler (eds.),ys heThe “Asse Books. 1976). eattia ORRPEN Assassinations (NewYork Vanthe™ York: Vantage (208) erases ate 2, Model and Groden. p. 11. sen, “J. F. K, King: ‘i antigo as Willie A. Somersett in Dan Christen- No. 11, September 1976, p or om ei ounty Links,’ Miami Magazine, vol. 27, Nobody Wanted To Reveal an r a tect Groden, “The J. F. K. Evidence That (206) FBT i - ; gosy, vol. 386, No. 1, August 1977, p. 34. No. 134 I interview of unnamed so issi source, Nov. 26, 1963, Commission Document 347, FBI report by Special Agent R. P.G 62100060, Field Office File No. 89-43, i pp.10-24. 0 207) FBI20.intervi utente FBI repihe‘sang Miltee Noy. 27, 1963, Commission Doe- Adams Milteer eph Adams y Special Agents K. A. Williams and D. A. Adams, 317 December 1, 1968, Bureau No. 62-109060, Field Office File No. AT 105-3198, pp. 24-25. (208) See ref. 203, Weisberg, p. 118. (209) See ref. 2, Groden, p. 33, but see also Secret Service Report, Nov. 27, 1963, S.S. File No. CO-2-33, 915 X-3-11-3363-8 (J. F. K. Document 01489). (During check of potentially dangerous persons Noy. 22-25, 1963, the FBI agent at Thomasville, Ga., ascertained that Milteer was in Quitman, Ga., at the time of the assassination. ) (210) Digital Image Processing Analysis of Photographic Evidence Relating to the John F. Kennedy Assassination, a report prepared for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, by Robert Chiralo, the Aerospace Corporation, Dec. 1, 1978, pp. 43-48 (J. F. K. Document 013712) ; see also Photographie Image Production and Analysis, prepared for House Select Committee on Assassinations by professors:at the Rochester Institute of Technology, July 16, 1978, p. 37 (J. F. K. Document 013712). (211) See ref. 207. (212) Ibid. (213) H. Stoudt, Damon, Albert and Ross McFarland, “Weight, Height and Selected Body Dimensions of Adults, United States, 1960-62,” National Center for Health Statistics, Series II, No. 8. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C., June 1965. (214) See ref. 207. (215) C. Snow and J. Williams, “Variation in Pre-Mortem Stature Measure- ments Compared to Statured Estimates of Skeletal Revezius,” Journal of For- ensic Sciences (16 :455-63) , 1971. (216) Outside contact Report (with J. Moriarty, Aug. 8, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations (J. F. K. Document 010640). (217) Ibid. (218) Frames of the Bell, Nix, and Muchmore films pan the same spectator area. (219)°See ref. 213, Stoudt. (220) Ibid. (221) Ibid. (222) Report to the President by the Committee on CIA Activities Within the United States (1975), p. 255 [hereinafter Rockefeller Commission Report]. (223) Ibid.; but see also M. Canfield and A. Weberman, Coup d’Etat in America (New York: The Third Press, 1975), p. 224, alleging the boxcar was originally parked closer to the knoll area and the Texas School Book Depository. (224) See ref. 222, Rockefeller Commission Report, p. 256; see ref. 223, Canfield and Weberman, p. 60. (225) See ref. 222, Rockefeller Commission Report, p. 257. (226) Ibid., pp. 251-52; see ref. 223, Canfield and Weberman, pp. 71-93. (227) See ref. 222, Rockefeller Commission Report, p. 251. (228) Ibid., pp. 256—57. (229) FBI report, Apr. 21, 1975 (J. F. K. Document 014520). (230) Report excerpt prepared for the House Select Committee on Assassina- tions, July 18, 1978 (J. F. K. Document 010005). (231) See ref. 223, Canfield and Weberman, p. 124. (232) See, e.g., Michael Eddowes, the Oswald File, General Publishing Co., (1977) ; letter and analysis from Jack D. White to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, Aug. 24, 1978 (J. F. K. Document 011086). ) (233) L. S. Penrose, “Distance, Size and Shape,’ Annals of Eugenics (18 :337- | 343), 1953-54; see also Eugene Giles and Hermann K. Bleibtreu, ‘Cranial Evi- ‘dence in Archeological Reconstruction: A Trial of Multivariate Techniques for the Southwest,’ American Anthropologist (63 :48-61), 1961; Jacques Gomila, The Use of Penrose’s Cu? For an Intra-Population and Inter-Population Analysis to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, Aug. 24, 1978 (J. F. K. Docu- : Se Weiner and L. Huizinga (eds.), (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), pp. 115- i oneWe ComslarDs, hanson hag Sh tas BD ment 011086). ssinations, Aug. 24, 1978 (J. F. K. Docu (235) See ref. 232, Eddowes. (236) See ref. 234, White. (237) Ibid. 318 (238) Repeatability of Height Measurements from Photos and Other Sources, a report by the House Select Committee on Assassinations. By W. K. Hartmann, April 1978 (JFK Document 007221). / (239) Testimony of Cecil Kirk, Sept. 25, 1978, IV House Select Committee or Assassinations-JFK Hearings, 362-365. a 4S (240) Ibid. (241) Ibid. hope : (242) Clyde Snow and Joan Williams, “Variation in Premortem Statural Measurements Compared to Statural Estimates of Skeletal Remains,” Journal of Forensic Sciences, October 1971, vol. 16, No. 4, p. 456. (243) Testimony of James W. Altgens, July 22, 1964, 7 Warren Commission Hearings, 517; the photographic evidence panel correlated the Altgens photo- graph in time to Zapruder frame 255. (244) Warren report, p. 644. (245) Testimony of Billy Nolan Lovelady, Apr. 7, 1964, 6 Warren Commission Hearings, 338-39. (246) Testimony of William H. Shelley, Apr. 7, 1964, 6 Warren Commission ' Hearings, 328; statement of Buell W. Frazier, Mar. 18, 1964 (CE 1381), 22 War. ren Commission Hearings, 647; statement of Sarah D. Stanton, Mar. 18, 1968 (CE 1381), 22 Warren Commission Hearings, 675. (247) See ref. 2, Lane, pp. 354-356 ;Shaw, pp. 39-42. (248) See ref. 2, Meagher, p. 362. (249) CE 1408, May 24, 1964, New York Herald-Tribune story, 22 Warren Commission Hearings, 793-94 ; see ref. 2, Model and Groden, pp. 147-49 ;Meagher. p. 363 ;and Thompson, pp. 225-27. 4 (250) Ibid. (251) Letter from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to J. Lee Rankin, Mar. 9, 1964, Commission document 457. ) (252) See ref. 2, Thompson, p. 227; outside contact report with Billy Nolan | Lovelady, July 5, 1978 House Select Committee on Assassinations (JFK Docu- ment 009727). | (253) Memorandum from Robert Groden to the House Select Committee on | Assassinations, July 21, 1978 (JFK Document 010209). }| (254) See ref. 210, RIT report, p. 36. O _*