Oswald Picture Not Faked

[Bernice Moore]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH MR. BRIAN MEE

CONCERNING THE FAMOUS BACKYARD RIFLE PHOTOGRAPHS

------------

Introduction

------------

On Tuesday, 16 August, 1994, I met with Mr. Brian Mee in my home

for the better part of three hours to discuss the famous backyard

rifle photos, which seem to show Oswald wearing a pistol belt

and holding a rifle in one hand and some radical newspapers

in the other hand. There are three backyard photographs

currently in evidence. They are labeled CE 133-A, B, and C.

Each shows the Oswald figure in a different pose. Although the

Dallas police said they found two negatives, one for A and one

for B, only the B negative is known to exist. An important

backyard snapshot was discovered in the late 1970s when the House

Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was conducting its

investigation. This photo, known as 133-A, DeMohrenschildt, is

much clearer than 133-A and was printed full negative.

Prior to our interview, I supplied Mr. Mee with a 22-page extract

from the file PHOTOS.ZIP, which at the time was available on

CompuServe's JFK Assassination Forum. This file contains the

HSCA testimony of two members of the Committee's photographic

panel, Calvin S. McCamy and Cecil W. Kirk, who testified in

defense of the backyard pictures. I also supplied Mr. Mee with

sections on the photos from two books that dispute their

authenticity.

I had discussed the photos with Mr. Mee on one previous occasion,

which was during our meeting of 8 August. That meeting was not

recorded.

In my 8 August meeting with Mr. Mee, I showed him Jack White's

video FAKE: THE FORGED PHOTO THAT FRAMED OSWALD. We did not

stop the video. We watched it all the way through. Then, once

it was over, I asked him about some of the points made therein.

In our 16 August meeting, we viewed about a dozen selected

segments from White's video. We did so one segment at a time.

In several instances, we reviewed a certain portion four or five

or more times, and then stopped to discuss it at length before

continuing. Of course, we also discussed in considerable detail

the 22-page extract of Kirk and McCamy's testimony.

Our meeting ran about 2 hours and 55 minutes, give or take a

minute or two. I recorded all but about 15 minutes of it on

audio cassettes. I had obtained two 60-minute tapes and one 30-

minute tape for the interview, never thinking that it would even

go beyond two hours. A few of those not-recorded 15

minutes were due to my not releasing the "Pause" button on my

recorder after I had paused the tape while we viewed a video

segment. (At times, however, I let the tape run while we

viewed a video segment.) The remaining unrecorded minutes

occurred toward the end of our meeting, when I ran out of

cassette tape. When this happened, I took notes. At the end

of the interview, Mr. Mee reviewed my notes from the unrecorded

portion, and he stated that they accurately reflected what he

had said.

I should make it clear at the outset that we did not examine

copies directly from the National Archives. Of course, we did

not study the original photos and the 133-B negative either.

Just about the first thing Mr. Mee asked me when he came through

the door was if I had access to the originals, and if I had my

own copies from the National Archives. Mr. Mee stated that in

some cases he would be unable to provide a firm judgment due to

the nature of the copies we had available to examine.

I will say, though, that in his video White uses copies of good-

quality reproductions of the backyard photos that he obtained

from the National Archives. I used the freeze-frame function on

my VCR and also made several long video segments of the photos

from Jack White's video. We viewed these on my 19-inch color TV,

which has a very high-quality picture. Additionally, I made

available to Mr. Mee an enlarged copy of 133-A from a fairly good

reproduction in Matthew Smith's book JFK: THE SECOND PLOT. Our

other source for copies of the backyard photographs was Robert

Groden's book THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT. Mr. Mee felt that in

several cases the copies I was able to show him enabled him to

reach firm conclusions. On the other hand, as mentioned above,

he also made it clear that he could not provide a firm opinion on

certain issues due to the nature of these copies and to his not

being able to view the original materials.

For the sake of convenience and organization, I placed subject

headings in the 22-page extract that I provided to Mr. Mee.

All testimony from PHOTOS.ZIP pertaining to these subjects

was included. The headings were as follows: "On Using Frame Edge

Markings and Scratches for Authentication"; "Frame Edge Markings

on 133-A (DeM) and the 133-B Negative"; "Imperial Reflex

Scratches on the Backyard Photos"; "Photogrammetry and the

Backyard Photos"; "Lines in the Chin Area?"; "The Shape of the

Chin"; "Varying Exposure Analysis and Faked Shadows"; "Digital

Image Processing"; "Nose Shadow vs. Body and Rifle Shadows";

"Duplicating the Nose Shadow?"; "Change of Expression?";

"Backyard Measurements and Stereo Pairs"; "Answering Jack White";

"General Comments"; "McCamy on the Possibility of Fakery."

Mr. Mee stated that the opinions he expressed were his own, and

that he was not speaking on behalf of any government agency.

The reader will notice that during the interview I read several

lengthy sections from Kirk and McCamy's testimony. I explained

to Mr. Mee before we went on tape that I would be reading

extensively from the extract in order to provide those who

would read this transcript with the necessary context and

background.

There is one issue about which I would like to further consult

with Mr. Mee, and that is his theory of how the backyard photos

could have been faked. In explaining his theory, he drew

diagrams and referred to them throughout his explanation. This

was the only point in our interview when I wished I had video

taped it as well as audio taped it. The reader might find it

somewhat hard to follow Mr. Mee's explanation without being able

to see the diagrams to which he was referring. I should say,

however, that I think one can still get the general idea of what

Mr. Mee was saying on this subject. Nevertheless, in reading the

explanation of his theory, some follow-up questions occur to me

that I will be asking him in the near future. I am certain he

will answer them, and when he does I will post his answers as a

supplement to this transcript.

Following my interview with Mr. Mee, I spoke with other

professional photographers and photo lab technicians, as well as

with serious, experienced amateur photographers. They did not

know that the questions they were answering were related to the

Kennedy assassination. I posed my questions in relation to a

hypothetical photo of a doll in someone's yard. When it came to

the issue of water spots and the nearly straight line that

runs across Oswald's chin, I simply asked what the chances

were that the edge of a water spot would form a nearly straight

line. Some of the people with whom I consulted included the

following:

* Mr. Konrad Mandl, a professional photographer and photo

lab technician, and a certified member of the British Institute

of Professional Photography.

* Miss Davette Johnson, a professional photographer and photo

lab technician, and a computer graphics technician.

* Mr. Jerry Finzi, professional photographer

* Mr. Mark Loundy, professional photographer.

* Mr. Arthur Kramer, a professional photographer who has taught

photography at the collegiate level. In addition, Mr. Kramer

wrote a column for MODERN PHOTOGRAPHY magazine for 20 years

called "The View from Kramer."

* Mr. Steven Newbould, a photo lab technician at the Harrogate

Photographic Laboratories, Harrogate, England.

All of the professionals and serious amateurs with whom I spoke

corroborated Mr. Mee's views on the issues about which I asked

them.

For example, Mr. Mee expressed considerable skepticism about the

photographic panel's claim that the irregular line across the

chin was actually the edge of a water spot. This line is nearly

straight, and Mr. Mee said this was one of the reasons that he

doubted the panel's assertion. Miss Johnson told me that in all

her years in photography she had never seen the edge of a water

spot form a nearly straight line. Mr. Mandl said it would be

unusual for the edge of a water spot to form a nearly straight

line. Similarly, Mr. Kramer stated that such an occurrence would

be "unlikely."

Mr. Mee disputed the photographic panel's claim that a vanishing

point analysis could explain the conflicting shadows in the

backyard photos. I did not discuss this subject with Miss

Johnson or Mr. Mandl, but I did question my other photographic

sources on the issue, and their responses were quite revealing.

I asked them if a vanishing point analysis could explain why the

facial and body shadows on my hypothetical doll did not fall in

the same direction. I asked them to assume that the facial

shadows fell straight down, but that the body shadows fell off in

approximately a ten o'clock position (which is what we see in the

backyard snapshots). Every single one of them insisted that the

described shadow variations were not possible without two

different light sources, and none of them expressed the view

that the variant shadows could be explained by a vanishing point

analysis.

Mr. Mee said that the film grain patterns in the backyard photos

could have been matched if the forger knew what he was doing and

took care to match the film speed. Mr. Mandl agreed that a

skillful forger could match film grain patterns in a composite

picture. Mr. Newbould said he believed that grain patterns could

be matched in a fake photo, but he added that he wanted more

information before commenting further on my question. Mr. Mandl

and Mr. Newbould were the only two persons that I asked to

comment on this topic.

------------------------

Mr. Mee's Qualifications

------------------------

Mr. Mee is a Depart of Defense (DOD) photographer and photo lab

technician. He has worked in photography for 18 years. He has

been a DOD photographer and photo lab technician for 10 years.

Among other things, Mr. Mee has studied and had on-the-job

training in negative retouching, print development, shadows,

and negative analysis.

In addition, he has had technical courses in color print

development and color negative development at the Winona School

of Photography, which is affiliated with the Professional

Photographers of America School. He has also had courses in

automatic printing and in using computer video analyzers at the

KODAK School of Photography in Rochester, New York.

-----------------------

Transcript of Interview

-----------------------

[Mr. Mee and MTG watch a segment on the DeMohrenschildt photo

from Jack White's video FAKE: THE FORGED PHOTO THAT FRAMED LEE

HARVEY OSWALD. The segment is about the DeMohrenschildt photo

and how its superior detail and clarity indicate that it was

taken with a different, better camera.]

MTG. All right, the thing about the DeMohrenschildt photo not

being a copy of 133-A because it has much better detail and a

larger background. Does that make sense?

MR. MEE. It wouldn't be a copy of 133-A if it had more detail

because, if anything, the reverse would be true, since you always

lose, you never gain, when you copy something. You lose detail,

definition, and contrast is built up. You start to lose your

gray tones, which hold most of your detail, and it starts to go

into shadow or [tape unclear]. So, it wouldn't be a copy.

The DeMohrenschildt photo would not be a copy of 133-A.

MTG. Could it have been printed off of the negative of 133-A,

even though it has better contrast and everything? I mean, Jack

White seems to think that because the DeMohrenschildt photo

has such better quality, that it must have been made with a

better camera. Is it logical to assume that it was taken with

a better camera?

MR. MEE. There are two possibilities that come to mind. That is

one of them--that it was done with a better camera. The other

one is that it was an earlier copy of the negative and that 133-A

is a second- or third-generation copy. To say that the

DeMohrenschildt photo was done with a better quality camera is

possible, and, it is likely, in this situation, the more probable

of the two choices.

MTG. Let me just see how we're sounding so far.

[Audio tape is stopped, rewound some, and then played back to

check sound quality. Mr. Mee and MTG then watch Jack White video

segment on how the frame edge markings and scratches could have

been produced.]

MTG. Your comments on that?

MR. MEE. One comment is on the theory that you an oval cutout

area was filled in with a figure. Cutting an oval out and then

inserting a body and then a head--I think that would be just too

difficult to accomplish without leaving tell-tale signs. You're

allowing too many areas where your tampering can be detected.

You're multiplying your suspected area by a whole bunch, as

opposed to just putting the head on and [tape unclear]. That

would be a little bit easier to do. That could be done. But

when you have to retouch such a large area, I think that would be

picked up. It would leave too many tell-tale signs. I wouldn't

really agree with that.

MTG. So, then, the first way that White suggested, of making an

exposure with just the edge markings on it, and then combining

this with the composite photo. . . .

MR. MEE. Yes, that could be done. It's feasible to do something

like that. The process of the sandwiching, though, might be a

little difficult to hide. This is not to say that it couldn't

be done, but then you'd be dealing with another negative and

probably with different characteristics.

But, the idea that a negative was shot that just had the edge

markings on it, and only the edge markings--something like that

would be difficult to achieve.

If you took the film and wound it across the IR camera without

making an exposure, and then developed that negative, you'd have

a clear type of, well, what we call an overlay, which you could

combine with a picture, instead of actually shooting any type of

picture through the IR camera. You see, otherwise, as soon as

you--even with the cap on--as soon as you open that up, you're

still going to get some type of traces of a different negative.

Now you could sandwich them together, and, again, we're talking

about making a print, and then working with that print and then

copying it. So that's a possibility. Something along those

lines. I wouldn't go so far as to say that's how they did it,

but it could have been done in this fashion.

MTG. So they, possibly, took some film, dragged it across the

film plane aperture, but did not snap a picture? Then, they

took the film out and that would have given them an overlay?

MR. MEE. Yes, that would give you an acetate overlay, a clear

film. Once you develop it, since it hasn't been struck by

light, it will come out clear. So then, you could place your

composite onto the acetate overlay and make a print and then copy

the print with a different camera. It would be possible to do

that.

MTG. So what would. . . .

MR. MEE. But there's one thing: Keep in mind that if you

copied the print with the IR, you would have multiple streaks and

edge marks. And you would probably have a shadowing type of

effect, or a ghosting type of effect, where you'd get one and

then another one close by. Even if they had tried to drag the

film through the camera again exactly as they had done before, I

think you would still be able to pick up slight variations in the

marks with a microscope.

MTG.. Okay.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on the fact

that the photographic panel omitted the nose, earlobe, and chin

measurements in the backyard photos from its Penrose study.]

MTG. Comments?

MR.. MEE. Just pretty much what I said last time. You don't do

that kind of a study and then leave out relevant measurements.

I'm surprised that the chin measurement wasn't considered. The

guys on that panel knew that the chin in these pictures was a

disputed area, according to the other articles that you gave me.

MTG. Oh, yes. They knew. The chin had been disputed for a long

time before that.

MR. MEE. Uh-huh. Well, that just makes it harder to understand

how they could have left it out when they did their calculations.

MTG. Could they have done this because the chin, and the other

things, threw off the total measurements too much?

MR. MEE. Let me put it this way: I don't know what they would

have left out ANY measurements, especially the chin, of all

things.

[Mr. Mee and MTG then view Jack White video segment on the

idea that the DeMohrenschildt photo was somehow produced without

the IR camera negative, and that the backyard photos could have

been made prior to being made with the IR camera.]

MTG. Any comments on that?

MR. MEE. It's quite possible.

MTG. So the DeMohrenschildt picture indicates that the backyard

photos could have been made before they were made with the IR

camera and that a better camera was used? I mean. . . .

MR. MEE. I think I know what you're getting at. When you

start talking about high-quality cameras, you're talking about

the lens not as much as the camera, and you would use a high-

quality lens to copy things, because you want to try to reduce

the aberrations and the contrasts, and all the things that go

with an inferior-quality lens when you're copying. You're

already losing something. You don't want to lose anything else.

So you use the best type of lens that you can get. So, that's

consistent with what would be normal practice if you had a

picture that was being worked on. You would copy that picture

with a more expensive camera, to preserve as much of the quality

as possible.

And, with the edge markings, you're talking about more of an

original type of negative, or rather an original type of a print

from a full negative. That's not to say that would be

the original print, or the original negative. You could take

a print and copy it, and you would still get the edge markings,

but it would be printed full negative, as in the case of the

DeMohrenschildt photo. That would be the only difference,

whereas with the other pictures you might not be seeing the

full print.

During that time [the 1960s], they would do a certain amount of

cropping on the edges. This is done quite often with automatic

printers. You'll look at the picture and say, "Wait a second.

Why is this person's hand cut off, when I can see it on the

negative?" So that's pretty customary.

MTG. How much of the picture on the negative would one usually

expect to be cropped? I mean, like, if you were going to give a

percentage, would you say it would be cropped 20 percent? Ten

percent?

MR. MEE. Well, you can't really say, because it depends on the

format. It depends on a lot of factors. It depends on the

machine you're using. It depends on the enlarger you're using,

and the operator who's using it. It gets back to format.. For

example, say you've got a 35mm negative. To get a 35mm print,

full negative--for instance in a 7 X 10. . . . [pauses] But most

people don't have 7 X 10 frames; they have 8 X 10 frames. So,

what has to happen is that it has to be blown up so that the 7

goes to an 8, but then you have to cut off the edges. In that

situation, you would cut off about 20 percent of the picture. So

that's one example of how cropping can come into play. There are

a lot of variables. It's hard to say.

MTG. Okay. So now. . . .

MR. MEE. I would say that normally, when you're copying a

picture, you'll want to crop in enough to where you can't see the

edging. Your attempt is to try to get in as much of the original

picture as possible, if you're trying to get the fullest picture

possible without the edging.

To get in as much as possible, you'd cut it really close. You'd

want to crop it enough so that you couldn't see whatever was on

the edges. You wouldn't want to be able to see the edging of the

picture which has a texture and has fibers in it.

MTG. Before we move on to other areas, am I right in saying

that it is your position that the presence of the frame edge

markings and the scratches alone is not absolute proof of the

backyard photos' authenticity?

MR. MEE. Right. I'm not convinced that those markings prove

that the photos weren't doctored.

MTG. Okay. The next area, then.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on Oswald's

expression in the backyard photos. White's view is that the

person in the picture could not have gone from the smile

to the frown without noticeably moving surrounding facial

muscles.]

MTG. Any comments on that?

MR. MEE. Well, I don't think that's a significant piece of

evidence. Every person is different. The degree that you're

smiling or frowning can be ever so subtle. The facial muscles

don't have to change that much. They [the other muscles]

wouldn't necessarily be noticed in these photographs.

Granted, if he had a big grin, it would change a lot of different

things. It would change smile lines, the way the light hits him,

what kinds of shadows would be created. Or, if he had a big

frown. The difference in expression in those two photographs

appears to be ever so slight, but it's hard to tell without

looking at enlargements of the originals. It's possible that the

frown or the smile was retouched. Both could have been

retouched.

MTG. The HSCA photographic panel said that the different

expressions--the smile and the frown--showed that this was not

the same head pasted onto separate photographs.

MR. MEE. Right. Well, it's possible that the mouth was

retouched. The heads in the photos could be the same head. But,

I don't think that that argument alone is a strong argument for

saying that the same head appears in all the photos. There are

other things that are more compelling as evidence that the same

head was used. The mouth could have been retouched.

Or, there could have been more than one photograph taken of his

[Oswald's] head, and then those pictures could have been used in

the photos. You could use two heads just as easily as you could

use one. But that wouldn't change the problems with the lighting

characteristics, the shadows. If two photos of the head were

used, they were photographed in one setting, and with the head in

the same position in each picture.

MTG. Right. Oh, by the way, it's interesting that Kirk and

McCamy criticized Jack White's use of overlays, but in order to

detect the smile and the frown they themselves used overlays.

MR. MEE. Yeah. [Mr. Mee smiles noticeably as he says this.]

MTG. Okay, let's see. Where's my copy of the extract? Oh, yes.

I'd like to ask you about the two other things that were

mentioned as evidence that the same head was not used, namely the

differences in the eyes and the puffing of the lower lip in the

frown. The argument is that this is more evidence that the

heads aren't all the same.

MR. MEE. Well, you could make that argument. I'm not ruling out

the possibility that two heads were used. The differences in the

eyes would indicate that more than one photo of the head was

used. But, from looking at these photographs here, it's hard for

me to tell. [Mr.. Mee points to the mouth and the eyes, and then

pauses to examine the photos.]

Could we look at that segment again? What I want to see is that

part that shows the head enlarged.

MTG. Sure.

[The portion of the video segment showing the head enlargements

is replayed twice. Mr. Mee then looks at the book copies of the

photos again.]

MR. MEE. I can see a slight difference in the eyes. But, you

can't say that these things couldn't have been retouched either.

I really wish. . . .

MTG. Including the. . . . Oh, I'm sorry.

MR. MEE. No, go ahead.

MTG. Including the eyes? The eyes could have been retouched?

MR. MEE. The eyes could have been retouched. But, on the other

hand, when you're looking at a negative, and you're trying to

determine which photo goes with which negative, one of the things

you look for is the subtlety of the smile, because it can change,

ever so slightly. So, it's possible that more than one

photograph of Oswald's head was used.

It's hard to tell from the pictures I'm looking at here. If I

had the originals, I could make a better determination. After

looking at the enlargements on the video, and at all these

copies [of the photos] again, my guess would be that two pictures

of the head were used, and that the head was photographed at

around noon. But, when the one head was put on at a tilt, the

nose and eye shadows were overlooked. That [the idea that two

head pictures were used] would be the more logical assumption.

But, again, this isn't to say that the mouth and eyes couldn't

have been retouched enough to create these differences. I'd

really have to look at the originals.

MTG. Okay. McCamy also brought up the fact that the lower

lip. . . .

[side one of the first tape runs out. The tape is flipped over

and reinserted into the recorder.]

MTG. Okay. We got cut off there. I was going to ask you about

the puffing out of the lower lip.

MR. MEE. Yes. That really doesn't say a whole lot in terms of

whether or not there's been retouching or if more than one photo

of the head was used.

MTG. Okay. I've got another segment I'd like to show you.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on the stance

of the figure in the backyard photos.]

MTG. Okay. The problem with the center of weight and also with

the stance when the figure is reversed--any comments?

MR. MEE. Well, I'm not sure exactly what Mr. White's trying to

say by pointing this out. Granted, the figure is standing there

in an awkward position, regardless of the head. The head here

doesn't seem to have any bearing on how this person is standing.

Maybe that's what he's trying to point out.

But the nature of photography is that you're catching the subject

in an instant. And to say that people stand or walk around all

the time in complete balance is not feasible. We see people off

balance in photographs all the time. He [the figure in the

backyard photos] could have been shifting his weight, or starting

to walk, or taking a step backwards. There are a lot of

different things that he could have done to make his stance look

odd. It does look odd, mind you. Certainly it does look odd.

But I don't know that you can say that the stance is not natural.

MTG. What about the claim that the figure's center of gravity

lies outside his weight-bearing foot? If this is actually the

case, what would that mean?

MR. MEE. Well, to me it is a moot point. People don't always

stand perfectly balanced. You see this all the time. I don't

know exactly what the suggestion is here. If it's that the body

was retouched in some way, I'd have a problem with that. I don't

know why, if someone went to such lengths to fake these

photographs--I don't know why they would need to retouch the legs

or the upper body.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on the conflicting

body shadows.]

MR. MEE. Can we watch that segment again?

[Video segment is shown several times.]

MTG. Comments?

MR. MEE. Well, something is definitely wrong with the body

shadows. I don't see quite the difference that Mr. White does,

but I do see a difference. I don't know that I would say that

one body shadow is right at ten o'clock and that the other one is

right at twelve o'clock.

MTG. Well, I think he's phrasing the differences in terms

of approximations. In other words, he's not saying that one's in

a perfect ten o'clock position and that the other's right at a

twelve o'clock position. Let's watch the segment again.

MR. MEE. Okay.

[Video segment is reviewed again.]

MTG. You see what I mean?

MR. MEE. Right. Okay. And, as I said, I can see that there's a

difference in the body shadows. They seem to have been made

at different times of the day.

Now, if I you wanted to make every possible allowance for body

movement or camera movement, or both, I could see how you could

perhaps say that the time difference between these pictures was a

matter of minutes, several minutes, as far as when the body

shadows were made. I could see how you could reach this

conclusion.

MTG. Uh-huh.

MR. MEE. Now, the shadows cast by the head and the neck in

133-A--they look odd to me.

MTG. How so?

MR. MEE. Well, the shadow of the neck looks too narrow. And the

head--I don't know if its shadow should angle off that much, when

it doesn't do that in B or C. The shadow cast by the neck is

thicker in B and C too.. These could be real shadows, mind you,

but they do look a little off to me.

MTG. Uh-huh.

MR. MEE. It's hard to say, though. It would really help if I

could look at the originals. Again, they could be real shadows.

I'm just saying that looking at them here, they do seem a little

strange.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on the fact that

in 133-C the body shadow runs up onto the fence, whereas the

body shadows in A and B don't.]

MTG. Comments?

MR. MEE. Well, to say that these photographs were taken within

seconds of each other, I think, is impossible. There's just too

much variance in the directions in the body shadows. They [the

body shadows] have definitely changed positions.

Now, about that C photograph--and, again, this is without looking

at the original--but what could cause that [the shadow running up

onto the fence] would be if the figure were a little farther

back. You've got to consider any lean, too. The weight shift

here [in 133-C], so that he's leaning back more, could cause

the shadow to go up onto the fence.. It wouldn't take that much

of a shift or lean to make it go up onto the fence. I don't

think that's an unreasonable amount. I mean, you can see this

for yourself by standing in front of a bright light. You can see

how much you can change the length of your shadow just by leaning

a little bit.

MTG. Okay. So the body shadow on the fence, that is, the head

going up onto the fence, could be due to a slight shift or lean?

MR. MEE. Right. And, by the way, I think the suggestion that

two different people were used, wearing the same clothes, is

really unlikely. I don't think they would have used two

different bodies, especially ones that were different heights.

MTG. Right. That makes sense.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on the blurriness

of the right-hand fingers in 133-A.]

MTG. Okay. On the blurriness of the fingers on his right hand.

MR. MEE. Well, yeah, that's the way it appears. But that could

have been caused by a couple different things. He could have

been moving that hand. Or, light might have been reflecting off

the newspaper and into the shadow areas of the hand, which would

take away some of the detail around the fingers. If his hand

were slightly angled, just ever so slightly, and with the

reflection from the newspaper, that would make the fingers look

stubby too. Those are more likely possibilities. I don't know

why a retouch artist would have tampered with anything in that

area.

MTG. Yeah, you'd think they would have had the guy just hold the

newspapers, and so they wouldn't have to do any retouching there.

MR. MEE. Right.

MTG. Okay. Now, in this next segment. . . . Well, let's take

a look at it.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on White's finding

that when he enlarged the figure in 133-A to match Oswald's

height of 5 feet 9 inches, the length of the rifle was too long,

and that when be brought the rifles to the same size, to match

the alleged murder weapon's official size of 40.2 inches, the

figure appeared to be six inches too short.]

MTG. Okay. What are your thoughts on this?

MR. MEE. The person's height could be different, and that would

be another indication of fraud in these photos. I don't know

why they would have used a stand-in who was so much shorter than

Oswald, though. You'd think they would have gotten someone who

was about Oswald's height.

MTG. Along that line, one of the Oswald impersonators was

said by two or three witnesses to be quite a bit shorter than

Oswald.

MR. MEE. Huh. That's interesting. Well, I'd have to examine

Mr. White's methodology more closely before I reached any

conclusions here, though. When you're doing these kinds of

comparisons, you've got to figure in other factors, like

whether or not there was any tilting of the camera, how the

person was standing, the relationship to other objects in the

picture, that sort of thing. But. . . .

MTG. Does the figure look like it's leaning or tilted very much?

MR. MEE. Well, I was just about to say that the figure doesn't

look like he's leaning to the point that it would be that hard to

determine the height.. He appears to be standing pretty much

straight up. Now, you don't know exactly how the camera was

being held, but I wouldn't guess that it was held way off

balance, to look at these pictures.

[Phone rings. Tape recorder is placed on pause. After MTG

hangs up the phone, the interview is resumed but the recorder is

accidentally left on pause. After about a minute, MTG realizes

that tape recorder is still on pause.]

MTG. Okay. We had a little snafu there. Let me ask you

this again. What is your opinion of Jack White's work overall?

MR. MEE. Well, overall, I'd say it's pretty good. I don't agree

with some of it. I think he's reading too much into certain

things. But, in general, I think he's on the right track. I

mean, from everything I've seen so far, from all the copies and

everything that I've looked at so far, I would say he's made some

valid arguments.

MTG. Well, you know that British photographic expert mentioned

in the video, Jeffrey Crowley, looked at White's work and was

quite impressed with it.

MR. MEE. Uh-huh. Yeah, I remember that. I mean, the guy [Jack

White] does make some mistakes, but overall he makes a pretty

good case.

MTG. Okay. Fair enough.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view the Jack White video segment on the

conflict between the backyard figure's chin and Oswald's chin,

and on the line that goes from one side of the neck, across the

chin, to the other side of the neck.]

MTG. Okay. I think I'll bracket the issue of the shape of the

chin. I've got a lot of pictures of Oswald, going clear back

into his junior high or high school days, and they all show him

with a sharp, cleft chin. I know in his testimony, McCamy said

he found some pictures of Oswald as a youth in which his chin was

a little broader and slightly flat. Even Congressman Fithian

wasn't convinced, and I haven't found that to be the case at all

in the photos that I have of Oswald as a youth. This isn't the

issue anyway, since the backyard photos supposedly show Oswald

as an adult. And all the photos of Oswald as an adult show

him with a sharp, cleft chin. I'd like to return to the

issue of the chin later when we discuss McCamy's claim that

the edge of the chin disappears in shadow.

MR. MEE. Okay.

MTG. I'd also like to hold off on discussing the line across

the chin until we review McCamy's argument that it was caused

by a water spot. All right?

MR. MEE. That's fine.

MTG. I just wanted to show you that segment to provide some

background for when we get to those issues in a few minutes.

MR. MEE. All right.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on the conflicts

between the nose shadow and the neck and body shadows, and

on the non-movement of the nose shadow even when the head is

tilted.]

MTG. Comments?

MR. MEE. Well, I think this is the area where you get into the

most convincing evidence that these photographs have been

doctored--the lighting characteristics. You can see in these

photographs that the nose and eye shadows do not match the neck

shadow. They don't match the shadow that falls down from the

body either. They don't match. We only have one sun, and that's

the problem. Even if we had two suns, their light still could

not produce the differences in the shadows in the backyard

photos. And I think that all the things that that panel [the

photographic panel] cited to substantiate these photos aren't

nearly as important as the shadow characteristics.

MTG. I was going to ask you about that later, but as long

as we're on the subject. . . . Now, McCamy, instead of dealing

with the problems in the shadows themselves, appealed to a

vanishing point analysis. He never actually got around to

explaining why the nose and eye shadows drop straight down,

while, on the other hand, you have a big patch of light on the

left side of the neck; and why you have the body shadows in A and

C falling at about a ten o'clock position. Instead, of dealing

head-on with those problems, he appealed to a vanishing point

analysis. We'll get into this more later, but for right now I'd

like to ask you if you think that an analysis of that kind can

overrule what you're able to see in the photos themselves as far

as the contrasting shadows?

MR. MEE. No, not at all. The shadows themselves, the different

angles that they show, their shape, the areas that they should

cover but don't--these have got to be dealt with directly. No

form of analysis is going to convince me that those shadows are

not different shadow groups.

MTG. Okay. Now. . . .

MR. MEE. Let me give you a little background on why I say this.

There are a lot of ways to alter shadows in photography. But in

this situation, where the figure was outdoors, during the day,

and where there was only one light source, there is just no way

that all the shadows in these photos could have occurred at the

same time of day.

Now, it could be argued that the reason there is more light on

the neck in 133-A is that you're getting a reflection off the

newspaper, but in B and C the newspaper is out to the side,

and. . . .

MTG. The patch of light is still there. . . .

MR. MEE. It's still there. It's still consistent. And that

shouldn't be. Most of the neck on both sides should be in

shadow, to be consistent with the eye and nose shadows.

And the nose shadow should not stay in that V-shape, coming

straight down onto the upper lip, when the head is tilted. Now,

with the tilt of the head here, you wouldn't see a big difference

in the nose shadow, but you would see some difference. The shape

and the angle would change. It [the nose shadow] shouldn't look

like that with the head tilted.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on two unnatural

bulges in the backyard photos, one in the neck in 133-A and the

other in the post in 133-B, and on the fact that these bulges are

parallel to each other.]

MR. MEE. Can we see that again?

[Video segment is replayed several times.]

MTG. On the bulges. Any comments on the bulges and on the fact

that they're parallel to each other? Could it be that a

retoucher might have goofed on the neck, spotted it, and then

decided to move the goof to the post in the hope that if he

moved it to a background image it would be less noticeable?

MR. MEE. Even good retouchers sometimes make small errors. I

can see the bulges. I can see what he's [Mr. White's] talking

about here. This goes along with the theory that these are

composite photographs and that they would have required

retouching.

MTG. Now, in the photographic panel's report. . . . Well, the

panel apparently had a hard time explaining the bulge in the

post. The theory that the panel put in writing was that the

indentation was an optical illusion caused by the shadow of a

twig. . . .

[side two of the first tape runs out. Tape is removed, and

another tape is placed in the tape recorder.]

MTG. Okay. Let's go over that again. I'm going to read

the explanation given by the photographic panel:

What could be perceived as an indentation in the

post in CE 133-B is believed by the undersigned to

be an illusion resulting from the location of a

shadow of a branch or a leaf along the edge of the

post.

Okay, and you said you have a problem with that.

MR. MEE. Well, the problem I have with that, keeping in mind

the angle of the body shadows and others, is that a branch or a

leaf here would have been struck by sun coming from around a four

o'clock position. Therefore, a branch or leaf shadow here would

fall in about a ten or eleven o'clock position, and so I don't

think the bulge here could have resulted from a natural shadow.

With the sun coming in from a four o'clock angle, I don't see how

that bulge could have been caused by the shadow from a branch or

a leaf. The angle's not right. Can we look at the part about

this in the video again?

MTG. Sure..

[Video segment is replayed. Afterwards, Mr. Mee then examines

the book and xeroxed copies of the photos again.]

MR. MEE. No, I don't see how that bulge could have been caused

by a shadow from a branch or a leaf. I don't see it. The shadow

angle would be wrong. The sun's in the wrong position to do

that. I'd like to see the originals, though. For a small detail

like this, you want to look at the original photos.. But from

what I can see here, I really don't think this bulge was caused

by any kind of a branch or a leaf shadow--not with the sun

shining the way it is in these pictures.

What about the bulge in the neck? How do they explain it? I

didn't see that discussed anywhere in the extract.

MTG. No, Kirk and McCamy didn't deal with that. There's nothing

about it in that file [PHOTOS.ZIP]. I don't know if the panel's

report deals with it either. I don't think the panel tried to

explain it.. If they had offered an explanation, I think Groden

and Livingstone would have tried to answer it. I could be wrong,

though. It's kind of hard to believe they wouldn't have tried to

explain this, but I don't know. I still haven't gotten a copy of

the panel's report. So I really don't know.

MR. MEE. Okay. Well, that neck bulge needs to be explained. It

doesn't look natural, and it's parallel to the bulge in the post.

It disappears in 133-B, but then you have an indentation in the

post [in B].

MTG. Uh-huh. In his HSCA testimony, Jack White suggested that

the forger's knife slipped and caused the post bulge. Could

something like that have caused the bulge in the neck?

MR. MEE. Possibly. Something's definitely off there.

MTG. Oh, I wanted to ask you about McCamy's explanation of the

indentation in the post.

MR. MEE. All right.

MTG. Let me read it here. He was referring to a computer

printout that was produced by digital image processing.

Our inspection of this leads us to believe that

the apparent indentation is simply a shadow,

because if you look very carefully, you can see

the post running through that area, and this is

just a slight darkening. So that was merely a

shadow.

MR. MEE. No, I don't think that's consistent with the direction

of the sun in the pictures. It's not consistent with the way the

bulge looks.

MTG. So, just to summarize, you're saying that the sun,

according to the body shadow, isn't in a position where it

could cause a shadow that would produce the indentation

in the post?

MR. MEE. That's how it looks to me.

MTG. Just to let you know, to my knowledge the panel never

identified which leaf or branch could have possibly caused such a

shadow. They simply said the bulge COULD have been caused by the

shadow from a leaf or a branch, but they didn't say which leaf or

branch.

MR. MEE. Okay.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on the fact that

a patch of sunlight on the side of the house beside the post

holding the stairway does not change shape in any of the backyard

pictures, indicating that the camera making the photo did not

move horizontally. This patch of light is to the left of the

post and is roughly parallel with the figure's right elbow.]

MTG. Now, on the non-movement of that one shadow underneath

the stairway. If it doesn't change shape or position, even

though the pictures were supposedly taken with a hand-held

camera, what does that say? I'm asking this because, supposedly,

she [Marina] took the first picture. Snap. Then, Oswald came,

took the camera from her, advanced the film, handed it back to

her, and then went back to where he was. She then had to and

position the camera again. And then this process was REPEATED

for the third picture. So how could that patch of light not

change in some way?

MR. MEE. The possibility that that patch of light would stay

in the same position and maintain the same shape after all that

movement is remote. You'd need a tripod, and even then you'd

have to be careful. Can we see that again?

[Video segment is replayed several times.]

MR. MEE. I think I can see what he's talking about, but can we

look at that a couple more times?

[Video segment is replayed two more times.]

MR. MEE. Okay, let me take another look at these pictures really

quickly.

MTG. Oh, sure. Take your time.

[Mr. Mee studies pictures for approximately one minute.]

MTG. Do you see what he's talking about?

MR. MEE. Yes. I would agree with that.

MTG. So wouldn't that be almost impossible using a hand-held

camera, especially given the way that these pictures were

supposedly taken?

MR. MEE. I would say it would be nearly impossible. The chances

of something like that happening would be astronomically small.

MTG. All right. . . .

MR. MEE. Even if you were using a modern camera, one that would

automatically advance the film after each shot, and were taking

a series of pictures, your chances of achieving that effect

would be low. They'd be better, but still very low.

MTG. All right. Now, if I'm not mistaken, I think we have just

one more segment.

[MTG starts to play the video tape and then realizes there are no

more video segments.]

MTG. Nope. That was it. That was the last of the segments.

MR. MEE. All right.

MTG. Okay. Now, a little while back, I got a message on

CompuServe from a gentleman named Paul Burke. In reference to

Jack White's secondary method for producing the frame edge

markings on the photos, he said, "Copying a photo assembled from

a group of photos as you and others have postulated using the

Imperial Reflex camera has a problem. Its focus ability, if any,

is limited, so the master montage would have to be large, a

couple of feet or so," which you said last time you didn't argue

with. . . .

MR. MEE. Right.

MTG. Okay, and then he continues, "and it would have all sorts

of granular discontinuities between the segments making it up,

such as sharp lines for the cuts, etc., etc."

MR. MEE. Well, I'd have to know more about the scenario he

has in mind. What are we talking about here? I mean, how

were the first pictures taken? What was in them? How many

copies are we talking about?

The appearance of your final product will depend on several

factors. It's going to depend on things like the quality of your

original photos, the camera, the enlarging equipment and

materials, and the retouching. There are a lot of things

that would come into play.

As far as size goes, it probably would be a rather large

photograph in this scenario. Your composite--it would have to be

a rather big picture. With the lighting in these pictures [the

backyard photos], I would guess that they used medium-speed film.

But there are so many things you'd have to establish first before

you made a judgment. And, also, the farther down the line you go

from your original, the more quality you're going to lose.

MTG. Okay. . . .

MR. MEE. Another thing--these pictures ARE grainy. I'm talking

about A, B, and C. They are not that sharp. They do have a

lot of texture and grain to them. Plus, you've got that

tell-tale line running across the chin, and the other things

[i.e., the bulge in the neck in 133-A and the indentation in the

post in 133-B].

MTG. All right. This thing about the chin, the lines across the

chin in 133-A. Now, in the extract, we read that McCamy was

POSITIVE that the line that runs from one side of the neck to the

other, crossing the chin--that that line was caused by a water

spot. The panel as a whole, however, did not go this far. In

the report it says that the cause of the lines has not been

definitely determined. But I wanted to ask you what you thought

of McCamy's explanation?

MR. MEE. Well, I was reading through that, and I had some

problems with it. The. . . .

[side one of second tape runs out. Tape is flipped over, and

the interview resumes.]

MTG. Okay. So you said you had some problems with McCamy's

explanation, with his claim that the irregular line across

the chin was caused by a water spot. This is the line that

Jack White mentions as well.

MR. MEE. Well, there are a couple things. One thing is the

sheer coincidence that this line just happens to fall in the chin

area; that this one edge of this one particular water spot is

supposed to have left deposits in such a way as to form a line

that coincidentally starts at one side of the neck, crosses the

chin, and then ends at the other side--right where Oswald's head

could have been attached to the body. I mean, this would be a

good place to join a head to a body in a composite, in the chin

area, and here we have a line in that region, and it's supposed

to be a water spot.

The other problem I have with what he says has to do with

his statements about the line as a photographic image.

MTG. Now, this is just before he starts talking about water

spots. You're talking about where he says the line isn't a

photographic image.

MR. MEE. Right.

MTG. Again, that line is the one that Jack White discusses in

the video, the one that starts off on one side of the upper neck,

crosses the chin, and then goes to the other side of the neck.

MR. MEE. Right.

MTG. Just to give us some context here, why don't I go

ahead and read exactly what he said about the line.

MR. MEE. Okay.

MTG. Let's see. . . . Here it is. This was McCamy.

Now that fine line is actually too fine to be a

photographic image. The photographic image is

made

up of silver grains, and these grains are

distributed all through here, so we have a good

idea of their size and distribution. This line is

a line that is much finer than the silver grains

themselves. It is much too continuous to be a

photographic line. A line that had been

photographed from some kind of montage would have

had the grain pattern of a discontinuous line, but

this line is quite continuous. Indeed, we can

follow this line down up to here and then back

around to here. It is a closed loop.

MR. MEE. Now, when you talk about what has been photographed--

what you see in the picture--that has no bearing on the grains in

the negative emulsion. The grains are more a characteristic of

the film itself than what has been produced from a photographic

print. So, when he ways, "This line is a line that is much finer

than the silver grains themselves. This is much too continuous

to be a photographic line"--this, to me, holds no water at all.

He's looking at the A print, not at the negative, so his argument

holds no water.

[Mr. Mee again reads from the extract] "A line that had been

photographed from some kind of montage would have had the

grain pattern of a discontinuous line." Now, again, that's

coming from a print, but what you'd need to look at would be the

negative, and he didn't examine the A negative. So his

argument is not valid. It doesn't prove anything. You see,

the grain is a characteristic of the negative, not the print.

I mean, even forgetting about that part of his argument, what

he's saying is that it [the line] doesn't have a grain pattern

running through it. The line is so fine that he says it's

getting in between the grain, which would put it in the emulsion.

It's like a sandwich, kind of like with two pieces of plastic,

and then the water spot would be sitting on top. But I think

that would be so obvious that there would be no doubt about it.

When he says the line on the chin is part of a closed loop, I'm

sort of at a disadvantage because I don't have the exhibit he was

using. So it's hard for me to comment. But if that irregular

line is part of a closed loop and was caused by a water spot,

then the loop is the outline of the water spot. Now that line is

almost straight, and water spots don't normally have edges like

that. I mean, water spots . . . well . . . they're just that--

they're spots. They're usually more oblique. They're not going

to have long straight edges.

And I'd like to see where the other edges of this loop are. I

mean, they don't seem to be in the face. Just looking at these

pictures here, I can see the line across the chin, but I don't

see any other tell-tale lines in the face. So I'd like to know

where the other edges [of the loop] are.

MTG. Okay. What I'd like to do now is ask you about McCamy's

point concerning what they saw when they examined the negative,

the 133-B negative, with a phase contrast microscope. Let me

just read that part, okay?

MR. MEE. Sure.

MTG. [Reading from the extract]

We examined the negative with a phase contrast

microscope, which would detect very, very small

changes in thickness in the negative.

He didn't come right out and say it, but I assume he was saying

that they checked the negative with that high-powered microscope

and didn't find any changes in thickness in the chin area in the

negative.

MR. MEE. Well, the thickness of the negative is not necessarily

going to be relevant. What I'm saying is that the original

photograph could have been copied and then a negative could have

been made from that. So you're not going to see any difference

in density in the negative if the negative came from a retouched

photo.

MTG. Uh-huh. Oh, let's go back to the water spot for just a

second if we could. I wanted to ask you something else about

what McCamy said about it.

MR. MEE. Okay.

MTG. He said, "We did not see water spots. . . ." Now, in the

extract the word "not" is missing, but it's obvious that that's

what he was saying. As you read on, it's obvious that that's

what he was saying. [Resumes reading]

We did not see water spots on 133-B, but we do see

that this same spot occurs on both of these first-

generation prints of the A negative, so we know

that the spot must have been on the negative.

Any comments on that?

MR. MEE. Well, to me, what he's saying is inconsistent. He's

saying that the water spot had to be on the A negative because

it's on the print, and that it's not part of the photographic

image. But unless you see the negative, you can't really say

that.

MTG. Now, just for the record here, let me read what the

[photographic] panel said about the irregular lines that

appeared on the scanned image of the B negative. I'm reading

from Groden and Livingstone's book HIGH TREASON.

MR. MEE. Yes.

MTG. Let me go ahead and read that out of the book.

MR. MEE. Okay.

MTG. They're quoting directly from the photographic panel's

report. Let's see. . . . Here it is. [Reads from page

201 of HIGH TREASON]

Under very carefully adjusted display conditions,

the scanned image of the Oswald backyard negative

did exhibit irregular, very fine lines in the chin

area.

The panel went on to say that the lines were probably caused

by "very faint water stains." Comments?

MR. MEE. Yes, I meant to ask you about their reference to

"lines," not just a single line. What other lines did they find?

MTG. You know, to be honest, I don't know. I've wondered about

that myself, because McCamy only mentioned one line that was

found with digital image scanning.

MR. MEE. Huh. Well, as far as what we just read, I would

say it's evidence of tampering. I don't accept the idea that

that line across the chin was caused by a water spot, at least

not at this stage I don't. Now, again, I haven't seen the

exhibit that shows the shape of the water spot that McCamy says

caused the line, but I'd be surprised if it caused me to change

my mind. I just don't think a water spot would leave that kind

of a line.

MTG. Okay. . . .

[side two of second tape runs out. That tape is removed from the

tape recorder and is replaced with the third tape.]

MTG. Okay. Now, McCamy said that they examined the chin area

with digital image processing and that they didn't find any

granular inconsistencies.

MR. MEE. Well, if you matched the film speed, using the kind of

film that was common back then, it would be hard to prove

something either way. Back then there was pretty much one way of

making film.

If you had a forger who knew his stuff and who knew the kinds

of things that would be checked for later on, you'd have to

guess that he would have done his best to match the grain

characteristics. This wouldn't have been impossible. If

he had access to the negatives of the pictures of Oswald's

head, it could have been done.

What I'm saying is that the tampering, the pasting of the head

onto the figure's chin, could have been done well enough to where

they [the members of the photographic panel] would not have been

able to pick it up with the technology that they had at that

time.

MTG. Ah, here's the part I was looking for you. If I could,

I'd like to read this to you. This is about the grain pattern

again.

One of the things that we wanted to do was to

study the nature of the silver grain in the areas

above the chin and below the chin, because of the

allegation that there were two different

photographs in some way. And so we did

that. . . . And as photographic scientists, we

found nothing remarkable about the grain pattern.

This was the same type of grain pattern.

MR. MEE. But, again, if the forger matched up the film, there

wouldn't be any noticeable difference in the grain. It [digital

image processing] would be inconclusive. Now, I'm not saying

this would not be an easy process. It would all depend on if

you had the negatives of the pictures of the head.

MTG. To match the film, you mean.

MR. MEE. Right. But it could be done. With the way film was

made back then--there was pretty much one way of making film--if

you matched the film speed, assuming you had access to the

negative of each head shot you were using, you could match the

film characteristics.

MTG. So your position is that the things that they claimed to

have observed through digital image processing in and of

themselves cannot prove that these are authentic photographs?

MR. MEE. No, I don't think that digital image processing alone

can prove these photographs are authentic. With the technology

that was available back then [in the late 1970s], I don't think

they could have proven this. I don't know that it could be done

today--possibly, with the scanning technology that's just

coming out, you could do it. It would depend on how carefully

the forger matched the film and on what steps he went through to

fake the photographs.. There are a lot of variables.

MTG. All right. Vanishing point analysis. I'm a layman, and

when I read this, I got the impression that they didn't want to

deal with the shadow angles themselves, so they resorted to

this vanishing point analysis. They tried to explain all the

shadow problems in the pictures--the neck, the nose and the eyes,

the body shadows--with vanishing point analysis. Let me read

this so we have some context here:

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. McCamy, how did the panel

address the question of the shadows in the

backyard pictures?

Mr. MCCAMY. This was addressed by a vanishing

point analysis.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. What do you mean by "vanishing

point analysis"?

Mr. MCCAMY. The sun is very distant, so far away

that we can consider it to be at infinity, and as

a result, if we draw a line from an object to the

shadow of the object, and we do this in a number

of places in a scene, all of those lines are

parallel lines.

Now you may recall, if you have ever seen a

photograph of railroad tracks disappearing into

the distance, the photograph shows those two rails

converging at a point. That is called the

vanishing point. The rails are parallel but in

the photograph they converge. This is taught in

art courses in high school and in mechanical

drawing, so the converging of parallel lines is a

well-known matter of perspective. In a photograph

one should expect that these parallel shadow lines

should converge at the vanishing point. . . .

Mr. MCCAMY. Yes. Here we have 133-A and 133-B. A

line is drawn from a part of this stairway, past

the shadow of the stairway, down to here. A line

is drawn from the butt of the pistol, through the

shadow of the butt of the pistol, down to here,

from the arm to the shadow of the arm, down to

here. And when we do this for all the points in

the photograph, we find that they all meet at a

point, as they should.

Now this is the line that passes through the nose

and the chin down to here, and that one is the

nose to the shadow of the nose. That is the one

thing that has been disputed so frequently, and

if you do the analysis properly, you see that the

shadow lies right where it is supposed to lie.

The same thing is true over here. Here we have the

muzzle of the rifle, the shadow of the muzzle of

the rifle, and so on down the line.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. McCamy, if the lines were not

parallel, would they all meet at one point as they

do in these two exhibits?

Mr. MCCAMY. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. If the lines in these two exhibits

had not met at one point, what conclusion or

inference might you have drawn?

Mr. MCCAMY. We might have drawn the conclusion

that something had been drawn in rather than

traced in by the hand of nature.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Did you do a similar vanishing

point analysis for 133-C?

Mr. MCCAMY. Yes..

Mr. GOLDSMITH. And what were the results?

Mr. MCCAMY. The results were the same.

Now, when you read on, however, it gets a little more

interesting. McCamy was asked about the sharp angles of the

lines in his analysis. I'll find it here. It jumped out at me

as soon as I read it. [MTG looks through extract for a few

seconds] Okay. Here it is. Let me read this. He [McCamy]

was being questioned by Congressman Fithian, who was the only

guy to ask any challenging questions. He [Fithian] said,

This morning I was listening carefully when you

described the vanishing point concept, which I

find fascinating. But I wonder why did the

vanishing point lines converge in such a very,

very short distance on your chart.

Now, I look at a railroad, even an artist's

conception of a railroad track, or a road where it

sort of narrows off. It gives me the impression

that we are talking about, you know, great

distances.

Yet, there are some very, very sharp angles that

those lines from the bush and the nose and the

rest of it come in, all within 2 feet on your

chart. Could you explain that optical problem

that I am having?

And here's McCamy's answer:

Yes. The vanishing point may be at infinity; that

is, if we have parallel vertical lines and the

axis of the camera is horizontal. Then we do get

parallel lines, and of course that says that the

vanishing point is at infinity.

Now, a very slight tilt of the camera will cause a

convergence, but it would be a very slight

convergence. It starts at infinity and it begins

to move inward.

Now, on the photographs that we saw here, the

vanishing point of the shadows was substantially

below the photographs. If photographs had been

made later and later in that day, I have estimated

that these pictures were taken about 4 to 4:30 in

the afternoon--if pictures were made later, the

vanishing point would have continued to move up

until finally it would be within the picture area;

that is, as the Sun had moved behind the

photographer.

In the instance that you cite of the railroad

track disappearing into the distance, the

vanishing point is in the picture, and you

are seeing the vanishing point.

I think that is as far as I can go in describing

that phenomenon.. The vanishing point can be

anywhere from at infinity to right in the picture

itself.

Now, I didn't quite understand exactly how McCamy explained the

fact that the angles in his chart were so sharp and converged

in such a short distance.

MR. MEE. Well, not having looked at his chart, it's hard for

me to comment on it. I'd have to look at it and see exactly what

we're talking about. Those lines and sharp angles do sound odd,

but I'd need to see the chart itself before I could really form

an opinion here.

But, really, I understand the principle of vanishing points,

and I don't think it's relevant in this case. The real issue is

the conflicts between the shadows. And, another thing, I can

tell you that the sun that hit Oswald's face wasn't in a four

o'clock position. You've also get to deal with the absence of

shadow where there should be shadow. You've got to look at the

shadows themselves--study their angles, determine the direction

of your light source, those kinds of things.

I mean, a vanishing point analysis is not about to explain

why Oswald's nose shadow doesn't move or change form in the

photographs. It's not going to explain why you seem to have

two separate light sources hitting the body and the face. It's

not going to explain those bulges [in the neck and the post].

MTG. Okay. The disappearing chin. McCamy said that the

edge of the chin disappeared in shadow. Now, the problem he

was trying to explain is the fact that in the backyard photos

the chin is broad and flat, but in all other pictures of Oswald--

in all those that were taken from any kind of a frontal

viewpoint--his chin is sharp and cleft.

MR. MEE. It HAS disappeared in shadow, but not to the extent

that Oswald's would have, and that's the difference.

MTG. Okay. He [McCamy] was saying that Oswald's chin form

vanished to the point that in the picture it looks like he has a

broad, flat chin.

MR. MEE. No, I would disagree with that. The sun was not in

a position to have that much of an effect on the appearance of

the chin.

MTG. Uh-huh. Okay. Now, Mr. Fithian, bless his heart, he had

a problem with this, too. Here's part of the exchange he had

with McCamy:

Mr. FITHIAN. Here is a thing that I had the

greatest difficulty with in terms of my own

viewing of the photographs, is the squareness of

the chin.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we could ask that that

multiple photograph, that chart with half a dozen

Oswalds on it, plus the two, could be put back up.

While we are doing this, let me preface my

question by saying that sitting here and looking

at your exhibit, I did not visually at least

identify any other chin that was even

approximately as square as the one in the backyard

photograph--from all of the pictures that you put

up.

I could not see that. I hate to return to what you

have already done. But it still puzzles me and

troubles me. That seems to be one of the

strongest points of the critics, is the misshape

of the chin. I want to make sure I understood

your testimony.

It was your testimony that it was the light and

shadow combination of an overhead Sun or whatever?

Mr. MCCAMY. Yes.

Mr. FITHIAN. Do I understand you correctly?

Mr. MCCAMY. Yes.

Then they went on for a bit, and then Fithian continued:

Mr. FITHIAN. In the photo, in the two large

blowups, the right-hand photo, is it your

testimony, then, that the point of the chin, which

obviously doesn't disappear--and I find it

difficult to believe that just by changing your

teeth or your mouth position it really makes that

much difference--is it then that the point of the

chin disappears in the shadow of the chin in

layman's terms?

Is that what you are saying happens in that

photograph?

Mr. MCCAMY. Yes, the lower part of the chin is not

illuminated, so you don't see it. It just

disappears in the shadow.

MTG. Do you accept that?

MR. MEE. Well, such a thing is possible, but not in this

instance, because of the position of the sun.

MTG. And that is what?

MR. MEE. The position of the sun?

MTG. Yeah.

MR. MEE. Well, the sun is overhead and to his left.

MTG. Based on the body shadows, you mean?

MR. MEE. Yeah. The sunlight is coming down at him from about

a four o'clock position. So I don't see how it could have made

that much of his chin disappear. I mean, the underside of the

chin is in shadow, but the edge hasn't vanished. The form [of

the chin] is still there.

MTG. What if the sun came from right around a twelve o'clock

position?

MR. MEE. Well, then you'd have to explain why both sides of the

neck aren't in the same amount of shadow, and why the body shadow

falls off to his right.

MTG. Uh-huh.

MR. MEE. I mean, if anything, it seems like there's more chin

there, more than there should be, in terms of width, even if

you ignore how flat it is.

MTG. Yeah, I think so too.

MR. MEE. That's how it looks to me. I would say the chin is a

serious problem.

MTG. Uh-huh. Okay. Now, I'd like to ask you about the

fact that the panel found only very small variations in the

distances between objects in the background of the pictures.

Given the way that these photos were supposedly taken, does

that seem possible?

MR. MEE. No, the variations would be greater if these

photographs were taken the way Marina said they were. I mean,

like they showed in the video: She snaps a picture; Oswald walks

over and takes the camera from her; he advances the film; he

hands the camera back to her; he goes back over and assumes

another pose; she aims with the camera again and then takes the

picture; and they go through this process again for the third

photo. No. . . . No way. The camera would have moved more than

just a tiny fraction of an inch.

Even with a professional photographer who's trying to hold the

camera as still as possible, you're going to have more variations

in distance than what they're talking about in these pictures.

MTG. Now, Jack White mentioned that the small differences in

distance could have been produced by keystoning. What do you

think about that?

MR. MEE. Oh, I think he's right. Now, when he was demonstrating

the keystoning effect in the video, he was exaggerating a little

bit to help you understand what he was talking about, but he's

got the right idea. It would be a simple matter of tilting the

easel just a little bit. I mean, any slight movement in the

enlarger or the easel could cause the kinds of differences

they're talking about here.

MTG. Okay. Stereoscopic analysis. They said that when they

analyzed these photos, they were able to view them

stereoscopically. Let me just read some of what McCamy said:

We were able to view these photographs

stereoscopically, so we know that there was slight

camera movement. We know that there were two

pictures. But it has much more far reaching

consequence than that.

It tells us that there was a solid three

dimensional field that was photographed two times.

If one were to have photographed the background

once, and then taken a camera and photographed

that print and then rephotographed the print from

two angles, when that is viewed stereoscopically,

the human eye would tell you that you were looking

at a plane print. That isn't what we saw. We saw

depth, and we can still see depth.

Now if one were going to do art work on actual

stereo pairs, that art work has to be done

exceedingly meticulously, because the slightest

difference in the art work on one photograph and

the art work on the other photograph would cause

the points involved to appear to be too far away

or too close. They would tend to float in space.

So stereo viewing is an excellent way of checking

up on the authenticity of the photograph.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Is any special viewer necessary to

enable someone to see in stereo?

Mr. MCCAMY. It is not necessary but it makes it

more convenient for most people.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. How many panel members examined

these photographs in stereo?

Mr. MCCAMY. At least, oh, a half dozen.

MTG. Any thoughts about that?

MR. MEE. If you have slight movement during the enlarging

process or during the copying process, I think you could get a

different perspective in the photographs that would cause that

effect. So, that doesn't prove. . . . It doesn't convincingly

say that these pictures are authentic.

I mean, I think we've all at one time looked through those little

children's viewfinders and have seen those cartoon slides in

3-D. The reason you get that is that you're looking through two

different eyes and seeing the result of a slight movement of the

prints. The prints of the cartoons have been slightly moved--the

prints you're looking at through the viewfinder. You've got two

prints, and they've been moved slightly, and that's what gives

you your 3-D effect, the slight movement of those prints.

So, in the case of these photographs. . . .

MTG. The backyard photographs.

MR. MEE. Right. In this case, if you had slight movement in

the enlarger or during the copying process, you could get the

right amount of difference between the photos so that you would

be able to view them in stereo.

MTG. Okay. One thing that I'd really like to ask you about

has to do with the DeMohrenschildt photograph and the frame edge

markings. Actually, it doesn't just involve the frame edge

markings. It involves matching the DeMohrenschildt photo to the

IR camera's film plane aperture. We talked about this briefly

last time. Now, when Jack White testified before the Committee,

the House Select Committee. . . .

MR. MEE. Uh-huh.

MTG. When he testified before the Committee, he said that. . . .

[side one of the third tape runs out. Tape is flipped over, and

the interview resumes.]

MTG. Okay. Now, this involves the finding of the edge markings

on the edges of the DeMohrenschildt photo and the determination

that the photo is genuine because those markings are unique to

the IR camera. Now, Jack White, when he testified back then,

said. . . . Well, let me read what he said. [Reads from page

205 of HIGH TREASON]

The DeMohrenschildt picture shows a much larger

amount of background around the edges than any of

the photographs, 133-A, B, or C. To me, this

indicates that the DeMohrenschildt picture is

printed full negative. In fact, we can verify

this because it is printed with a black border

around the edge, the black border being the clear

area around the edge of the negative.

According to the FBI, the picture, CE-133-B, was

identified as being taken with Oswald's camera

because it could be matched to the film plane

aperture. Yet, if the DeMohrenschildt picture

shows a larger background area and it is taken

from the same camera viewpoint, then 133-A, B, and

C have been cropped and, therefore, if there is

more background area in the picture, then it [the

DeMohrenschildt photo] could not possibly be

matched to the film plane aperture.

Do you understand his point?

MR. MEE. Yes.

MTG. Can you explain it in layman's terms? Do you think he's

right?

MR. MEE. Well, there are certain things I'd have to know

before I could say whether or not he's right. I'll put it this

way: If the DeMohrenschildt photo has a lot more background than

the B negative, and if both were taken from the same camera

viewpoint, then, yes, that would tend to tell me that Mr. White

is correct. What you'd have to do is make precise measurements

of the DeMohrenschildt picture and the B negative, and then

compare them. You'd also need to know if they were taken from

the same camera viewpoint. You'd want a good, uncropped print of

the B negative. These are the kinds of things I'd need to check

out before I could really say anything about what he [White]

says here.

MTG. In his video, Jack White suggests that the DeMohrenschildt

photo is a composite made up of 133-A and the border of the film

plane aperture of the IR camera.

MR. MEE. Can we see that segment again?

MTG. Yeah.

[Video segment is located on the tape and then replayed.]

MR. MEE. No, that explanation. . . . I see what he's saying,

but if you do that, you're going to have sort of a line of

demarcation all the way around. This would be very easy to

identify. Or, let's put it this way: It would be very difficult

to cover up, extremely difficult to cover up, a line like that.

It would be almost impossible to do that.

MTG. Okay. Now to get back to the other point, about the fact

that it's so much clearer than 133-A and. . . .

MR.. MEE. It's an earlier generation than the ones that have

been cropped..

MTG. Right. Now how would they have gotten the two scratch

marks onto it [the DeMohrenschildt photo]?

MR. MEE. Well, this gets into how these pictures could have

been made. I'll tell you what I think they might have done.

[Mr. Mee starts to draw a diagram, using squares to represent

pictures and/or negatives. As he presents his explanation, he

points back and forth to the different squares. For instance,

when he refers to "this one" or says "here," he points to a

certain square, and then when he says something like "and then

this one over here," he points to a different square, etc.,

etc.]

You see, what I'm thinking is that there was a group of backyard

photographs made long before the DeMohrenschildt photograph, and

that at some point in this earlier group you have composites.

The first pictures, the very first ones, would be taken with a

high-quality camera, a very high-quality camera. So your first

pictures are all very high quality. Okay?

MTG. Uh-huh.

MR. MEE. And then this group here would be taken from those

pictures, again using a high-quality camera. Now the pictures

in this group would be smaller than the first ones.

And then, after that, just for example, way down the road,

133-A, B, and C were taken from these. Okay? And every time

along the way you're losing a generation.

MTG. Uh-huh.

MR. MEE. And, you never can tell, there may have been more then

a couple generations in between these photos.

Now, in the early stages, we're just talking about the

background--one very high-quality picture of the backyard.

So, then, you get down to here where you have your first pictures

that include the figure holding the rifle and the newspapers.

Okay?

MTG. All right.

MR. MEE. Now, there may have been more originals. You don't

know how many could have existed before that.

At this stage here, you introduce one or two heads, and you

retouch those prints. Then, you photograph that print and

you come up with a print and a negative here. And you do that

for each picture. Now, these prints could be retouched, or the

negatives could be retouched. Then, you'd make prints from those

negatives.

Now, you're down to here. This is where we introduce this stage,

here. These photographs can either be the same or a generation

or two down. Okay, then you've got these photos here--they've

had the art work done on them and they've been reworked. Until

now you're using a very high-quality camera. Then, you

photograph one of these photos with the IR camera to make, for

example, the DeMohrenschildt picture, which would give you the

edge markings and the scratches.

MTG. Now, what would happen if you were to analyze, say, the

negative of this photo right here with digital image processing

after all this stuff had been done?

MR. MEE. Well, you've got to remember that you have these other

pictures up here, where the heads are included. The grain

pattern of this photo--the one that you're talking about--is

going to be dependent on the film that has been used. If you

have the negative of the photo of the head, then you know what

kind of film to use.

Let's say you saw that the film used for the head was, oh, 100-

speed Kodak. That was a pretty common film back then, 100-speed.

It might have even been less than that. Now, you would have to

be sure, then, to use 100-speed Kodak to shoot the prints of the

background and of the guy standing with the rifle and the

newspapers. The key would be to keep your film consistent

throughout. That would be very important. Now, if you did this,

it would be extremely difficult, with the technology that they

had during that time, to detect what little differences you

would have with this process. We're talking about the late

seventies?

MTG. 1978 to 1979.

MR. MEE. Right. I don't think they had the technology back then

to be able to discern the small differences you'd have if you

kept your film consistent. Today, possibly, with the

sophistication of the computers and the scanning capabilities

that they're just now coming out with, you might be able to spot

the differences. But in the late seventies, I don't think they

had the capability to detect them. As long as you maintained

the consistency of the film for your photos, they'd all blend

together. It's just like anything else. If your process is

gradual enough, they're going to blend right in. This is how I

think these photographs could have been made.

MTG. Do you think there was only one forger?

MR. MEE. No, I think you would have needed a team, a group of

professionals.

MTG. I'd like to show you a couple doctored prints that were

released by Dallas authorities in 1992.

[MTG shows Mr. Mee the two prints, both of which show a white

human silhouette where Oswald is supposed to be. The whited-out

figure corresponds closely in size and outline to the figure in

the backyard photos.]

MR. MEE. Is that right? Well, somebody was doing something.

Now, this doesn't prove that this is how it was done. But these

prints might represent an early attempt to produce the backyard

photos. You never know.

See, the thing is, though, I don't believe the pictures were

made like this because you would have had too much area to

retouch, even for a good retoucher. Here, in the head area, you

would have only had a very small area to worry about. Mind you,

these prints might have been a part of the process. It could

have been done that way. But that's not how I would have done

it.

They [the forgers] probably looked at several different options

for making these photographs, and they would have been looking

for the best method. So these prints could have been one

of the ways that they considered.

MTG. All right. I'd like to ask you about varying exposure

analysis.

MR. MEE. Well, I understand what they were doing. The theory

is that you're trying to. . . .

MTG. Can I go ahead and read a little bit first?

MR. MEE. Sure.

MTG. Okay, I'm going to read some of what McCamy said about

this.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Please explain the results of this

varying exposure analysis.

Mr. MCCAMY.. Yes. In these illustrations, the

greatest exposure gives the darkest print, and the

least exposure, the lightest print. The advantage

of doing this is that in the lightest areas of the

picture we can see detail here that cannot be seen

up here. Conversely, in the shadows, this is the

best photograph on which to look for the detail.

So that is a print ideally exposed to look into

the shadows. This one is ideally exposed to look

into the highlights, so we can see all the detail

there.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. After applying this method, did

the panel discern anything unusual about these

pictures?

Mr. MCCAMY. No, nothing at all. There had been

allegations that the shadows were painted in, and

a simple examination of the shadows on these

pictures shows that there is plenty of detail

there. You can see grass, little stones. There

is a newspaper lying back here. You can see the

detail on it.

Any comments?

MR. MEE. I don't think it's an issue. I mean, I don't think the

shadows were added. Now, I haven't had time to study these

pictures long enough to give a firm opinion in this area. But,

just from what I can see--again, without looking at the

originals--I don't think the shadows were added.

What he's talking about here is altering the exposure so

you can see detail in the shadows. A black and white print has

different grades from lightness to darkness. The full spectrum

is called a zone system. The full spectrum is from 1 to 10--1

being your whitest white, and 10 being your blackest black. Most

cameras and film can only pick up a zone from about. . . . Well,

let's say this is a sliding scale. Your camera might get a very

white white, but it might not get a really dark dark, and it

doesn't get everything in between. So, by altering the exposure,

you can lighten these dark areas and see detail in them.

Now that doesn't explain the problems of the different shadow

angles and the bulges in the post and the neck.

MTG. Right.

MR. MEE. And I still have some questions about the shadow

of the neck and the head in 133-A. It looks a little odd, but

that might be due to using a different head. But the shadows of

the bushes, the stairway, and all that--I don't see why a

retoucher would have bothered with them. It would have been

taking an unnecessary risk. So, really, I'd tend to agree with

him [McCamy]. From what I can see, I don't think the shadows

were added.

MTG. Okay. . . .

MR. MEE. Now, if he's saying that this analysis explains the

shadow angles and those neck and post bulges, then I would

disagree with him. You're not going to explain away those

problems with that sort of analysis.

MTG. It seems to me that the easiest way to explain the

different body shadows would be to assume that they were

photographed at different times of the day.

MR. MEE. Yeah, I think they were just taken at different times

of the day.

You see, I understand what some of these guys [conspiracists] are

saying. If you had a situation where you took a picture of the

scene, and then took a picture of a person in a studio or

somewhere else and then put the figure in the picture, then you'd

need to add the shadows. But I agree with him [McCamy] here. I

don't think the shadows were added. It would be a lot easier to

just put a head on a body. I mean, you could put anybody in the

picture. You could take the picture with the background and

the body and everything, and then just take the head and put it

on the figure. That would be a lot easier.

MTG. Okay. I know we talked about this quite a bit last time,

but I'd like to ask you again about the reenactment that McCamy

cited to show that the nose shadow could remain the same even

with the head tilted. I've already discussed this reenactment

in detail in the forum [the JFK Assassination Forum on

CompuServe]. I'd just like to get some of your views on it.

MR. MEE. [begins shaking his head from side to side in the

typical "No" motion.] Right. Well. . . . [pauses and

continues to shake his head]

MTG. Well, you know, even Congressman Fithian pointed out that

the chances that all those things would occur at the same

time were very low. [Fithian was referring to the manipulated

and unrealistic head and camera movements that were done in the

reenactment.]

MR. MEE. Yeah. Well, let's put it this way: What they did

wasn't realistic. The bottom line is that the [nose] shadow

should have shifted when the head tilted. I mean, with the head

tilted like that, you wouldn't have a drastic change, but you'd

get enough movement that you could easily spot the difference.

There's just no way that shadow should look like that.

MTG. Okay. Let's see. . . . Let me see if I can find it

here. Okay, here it is. What I have here is a picture. . . .

[side two of the third tape runs out. The portion follows is

reconstructed from notes taken by MTG. MTG showed Mr. Mee the

notes at the conclusion of the interview, and Mr. Mee said

they accurately reflected what he had said.]

MTG. I'd like to show you a picture from Gerald Posner's book

CASE CLOSED. The picture shows the grain structure analysis that

was done on the right side of Oswald's face. Would you take a

look at it and tell me what you think?

[MTG shows Mr. Mee the bottom photo on the sixth page of pictures

in Posner's book. Mr. Mee studies it for about a minute.]

MR. MEE. I can see some variation in the grain pattern.

However, I wouldn't form an opinion just from looking at a copy

of a picture of this nature in a book. I would need to study the

originals with a high-powered microscope so that I could see the

grain structure. But, if the forger matched the film, and given

the fact that for the most part there was one standard way

of making film in the 60s, I wouldn't expect to see a big

difference in the grain anyway. If the film was in fact

matched, it would be difficult to reach a definite conclusion

about the grain in terms of the authenticity of the backyard

photos.

MTG. When McCamy recognized that Mr. Scott's photograph was

a fake, he did so because the shadows on the suit didn't match

the shadows on the railing. McCamy explained:

He [Mr. Scott, a fellow panel member] spent 40

hours with an assistant preparing a fake

photograph of a man standing in a backyard. When

he presented the photograph, he mailed it to me, I

pulled it out of the envelope, and as I pulled it

out of the envelope I said it is a fake.

I was rather surprised that it was that easy. As

it turned out, what he had done was to make a

photograph, a 6-foot photograph of a 6-foot man,

and this was placed in the backyard, and it was

photographed.

But there was a thing that caught my eye

instantly; that is, that there were shadows that

were cast by parts of a dark suit. There were

shadows cast by parts of a railing immediately

behind the man.

When the suit was in full sunlight, it exactly

matched the railing. But the shadows on the suit

didn't match the shadows on the railing.

Now, that would not be the way it would have been

if it had been a true photograph.

When I read this, I thought it was strange that this was the same

man who had just gone to such great lengths to dismiss the

implications of the variant shadows in the backyard photos. Yet,

he admitted that he concluded that Mr. Scott's picture was a fake

because some of the shadows didn't match. What is your opinion

on this matter?

MR. MEE. McCamy was saying the same thing about Scott's photo

that others have said about the backyard pictures. He was not

consistent.

Inconsistent shadows in a photo are a clear indication of fakery.

McCamy was absolutely correct in immediately branding Mr. Scott's

picture a fake based on the conflicting shadows, because we

only have one sun. The shadow conflicts in the backyard

photographs are at least, if not more, serious and telling. The

head and the body were not photographed in the same sunlight.

They were taken at two different times of the day.

MTG. What do you think of the argument that a good forger would

have done his pasting in a different part of the body, such as

in the stomach or in the chest?

MR. MEE. For one thing, in order to attach an upper body onto

someone else's lower body in the stomach or chest area, you would

have to match the shirt widths exactly. You would need to

maintain consistency in any wrinkles or folds that came up to the

joining point. You would have to ensure that the two persons'

builds and figures were compatible. Also, the larger the object

that your attaching, the harder it will be to hide the pasting.

There is also the matter of the figure's pose. In order to

attach Oswald's upper body onto a lower body, the forgers would

have needed a picture of Oswald with his arms and hands in the

necessary positions. They would have needed photos of him

with his hands held in such a way that the rifle and the

newspapers could have been inserted into them.

Doing the pasting at the abdomen or lower would also present

problems. The builds and figures would again have to be

compatible. And you would be increasing the size of the

object to be attached, thus making it even harder to hide

the pasting.

The chin area would be a logical place to do the joining, for

a number of reasons. Most people have a natural cleft or

indentation of some form in the chin, beneath the lower lip, and

I notice that the line across Oswald's chin runs through this

area. In joining only about 4/5 of a head onto a chin, the

object to be attached would be small, much smaller than part or

all of a man's upper body.

The neck would be another place where the pasting could be done.

The object to be attached would still be relatively small, at

least when compared to an upper body. But, you would need to

have necks that were identical in size and shape.

MTG. Finally, what would you say in summary about the backyard

photographs?

MR. MEE. I am convinced they are fake. They show impossible

shadows. The shadow conflicts are serious and telling. There is

no way the backyard photos could have identical, or even nearly

identical, backgrounds if they were taken in the manner described

by Marina Oswald. The figure's chin is not Oswald's chin. This

is readily apparent. Even if we were to accept the claim that

the line across the chin was caused by a water spot, that would

not change the fact that the chin itself is noticeably different

from Oswald's chin. The neck bulge and the post indentation are

further indications of tampering.

MTG. I would like to thank you for coming here tonight and for

taking so much of your time to answer my questions.

MR. MEE. You're quite welcome, and it was my pleasure.

TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH MR. BRIAN MEE

CONCERNING THE FAMOUS BACKYARD RIFLE PHOTOGRAPHS

------------

Introduction

------------

On Tuesday, 16 August, 1994, I met with Mr. Brian Mee in my home

for the better part of three hours to discuss the famous backyard

rifle photos, which seem to show Oswald wearing a pistol belt

and holding a rifle in one hand and some radical newspapers

in the other hand. There are three backyard photographs

currently in evidence. They are labeled CE 133-A, B, and C.

Each shows the Oswald figure in a different pose. Although the

Dallas police said they found two negatives, one for A and one

for B, only the B negative is known to exist. An important

backyard snapshot was discovered in the late 1970s when the House

Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was conducting its

investigation. This photo, known as 133-A, DeMohrenschildt, is

much clearer than 133-A and was printed full negative.

Prior to our interview, I supplied Mr. Mee with a 22-page extract

from the file PHOTOS.ZIP, which at the time was available on

CompuServe's JFK Assassination Forum. This file contains the

HSCA testimony of two members of the Committee's photographic

panel, Calvin S. McCamy and Cecil W. Kirk, who testified in

defense of the backyard pictures. I also supplied Mr. Mee with

sections on the photos from two books that dispute their

authenticity.

I had discussed the photos with Mr. Mee on one previous occasion,

which was during our meeting of 8 August. That meeting was not

recorded.

In my 8 August meeting with Mr. Mee, I showed him Jack White's

video FAKE: THE FORGED PHOTO THAT FRAMED OSWALD. We did not

stop the video. We watched it all the way through. Then, once

it was over, I asked him about some of the points made therein.

In our 16 August meeting, we viewed about a dozen selected

segments from White's video. We did so one segment at a time.

In several instances, we reviewed a certain portion four or five

or more times, and then stopped to discuss it at length before

continuing. Of course, we also discussed in considerable detail

the 22-page extract of Kirk and McCamy's testimony.

Our meeting ran about 2 hours and 55 minutes, give or take a

minute or two. I recorded all but about 15 minutes of it on

audio cassettes. I had obtained two 60-minute tapes and one 30-

minute tape for the interview, never thinking that it would even

go beyond two hours. A few of those not-recorded 15

minutes were due to my not releasing the "Pause" button on my

recorder after I had paused the tape while we viewed a video

segment. (At times, however, I let the tape run while we

viewed a video segment.) The remaining unrecorded minutes

occurred toward the end of our meeting, when I ran out of

cassette tape. When this happened, I took notes. At the end

of the interview, Mr. Mee reviewed my notes from the unrecorded

portion, and he stated that they accurately reflected what he

had said.

I should make it clear at the outset that we did not examine

copies directly from the National Archives. Of course, we did

not study the original photos and the 133-B negative either.

Just about the first thing Mr. Mee asked me when he came through

the door was if I had access to the originals, and if I had my

own copies from the National Archives. Mr. Mee stated that in

some cases he would be unable to provide a firm judgment due to

the nature of the copies we had available to examine.

I will say, though, that in his video White uses copies of good-

quality reproductions of the backyard photos that he obtained

from the National Archives. I used the freeze-frame function on

my VCR and also made several long video segments of the photos

from Jack White's video. We viewed these on my 19-inch color TV,

which has a very high-quality picture. Additionally, I made

available to Mr. Mee an enlarged copy of 133-A from a fairly good

reproduction in Matthew Smith's book JFK: THE SECOND PLOT. Our

other source for copies of the backyard photographs was Robert

Groden's book THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT. Mr. Mee felt that in

several cases the copies I was able to show him enabled him to

reach firm conclusions. On the other hand, as mentioned above,

he also made it clear that he could not provide a firm opinion on

certain issues due to the nature of these copies and to his not

being able to view the original materials.

For the sake of convenience and organization, I placed subject

headings in the 22-page extract that I provided to Mr. Mee.

All testimony from PHOTOS.ZIP pertaining to these subjects

was included. The headings were as follows: "On Using Frame Edge

Markings and Scratches for Authentication"; "Frame Edge Markings

on 133-A (DeM) and the 133-B Negative"; "Imperial Reflex

Scratches on the Backyard Photos"; "Photogrammetry and the

Backyard Photos"; "Lines in the Chin Area?"; "The Shape of the

Chin"; "Varying Exposure Analysis and Faked Shadows"; "Digital

Image Processing"; "Nose Shadow vs. Body and Rifle Shadows";

"Duplicating the Nose Shadow?"; "Change of Expression?";

"Backyard Measurements and Stereo Pairs"; "Answering Jack White";

"General Comments"; "McCamy on the Possibility of Fakery."

Mr. Mee stated that the opinions he expressed were his own, and

that he was not speaking on behalf of any government agency.

The reader will notice that during the interview I read several

lengthy sections from Kirk and McCamy's testimony. I explained

to Mr. Mee before we went on tape that I would be reading

extensively from the extract in order to provide those who

would read this transcript with the necessary context and

background.

There is one issue about which I would like to further consult

with Mr.. Mee, and that is his theory of how the backyard photos

could have been faked. In explaining his theory, he drew

diagrams and referred to them throughout his explanation. This

was the only point in our interview when I wished I had video

taped it as well as audio taped it. The reader might find it

somewhat hard to follow Mr. Mee's explanation without being able

to see the diagrams to which he was referring. I should say,

however, that I think one can still get the general idea of what

Mr. Mee was saying on this subject. Nevertheless, in reading the

explanation of his theory, some follow-up questions occur to me

that I will be asking him in the near future. I am certain he

will answer them, and when he does I will post his answers as a

supplement to this transcript.

Following my interview with Mr. Mee, I spoke with other

professional photographers and photo lab technicians, as well as

with serious, experienced amateur photographers. They did not

know that the questions they were answering were related to the

Kennedy assassination. I posed my questions in relation to a

hypothetical photo of a doll in someone's yard. When it came to

the issue of water spots and the nearly straight line that

runs across Oswald's chin, I simply asked what the chances

were that the edge of a water spot would form a nearly straight

line. Some of the people with whom I consulted included the

following:

* Mr. Konrad Mandl, a professional photographer and photo

lab technician, and a certified member of the British Institute

of Professional Photography.

* Miss Davette Johnson, a professional photographer and photo

lab technician, and a computer graphics technician.

* Mr. Jerry Finzi, professional photographer

* Mr. Mark Loundy, professional photographer.

* Mr. Arthur Kramer, a professional photographer who has taught

photography at the collegiate level. In addition, Mr. Kramer

wrote a column for MODERN PHOTOGRAPHY magazine for 20 years

called "The View from Kramer."

* Mr. Steven Newbould, a photo lab technician at the Harrogate

Photographic Laboratories, Harrogate, England.

All of the professionals and serious amateurs with whom I spoke

corroborated Mr. Mee's views on the issues about which I asked

them.

For example, Mr. Mee expressed considerable skepticism about the

photographic panel's claim that the irregular line across the

chin was actually the edge of a water spot. This line is nearly

straight, and Mr. Mee said this was one of the reasons that he

doubted the panel's assertion. Miss Johnson told me that in all

her years in photography she had never seen the edge of a water

spot form a nearly straight line. Mr. Mandl said it would be

unusual for the edge of a water spot to form a nearly straight

line. Similarly, Mr. Kramer stated that such an occurrence would

be "unlikely."

Mr. Mee disputed the photographic panel's claim that a vanishing

point analysis could explain the conflicting shadows in the

backyard photos. I did not discuss this subject with Miss

Johnson or Mr. Mandl, but I did question my other photographic

sources on the issue, and their responses were quite revealing.

I asked them if a vanishing point analysis could explain why the

facial and body shadows on my hypothetical doll did not fall in

the same direction. I asked them to assume that the facial

shadows fell straight down, but that the body shadows fell off in

approximately a ten o'clock position (which is what we see in the

backyard snapshots). Every single one of them insisted that the

described shadow variations were not possible without two

different light sources, and none of them expressed the view

that the variant shadows could be explained by a vanishing point

analysis.

Mr. Mee said that the film grain patterns in the backyard photos

could have been matched if the forger knew what he was doing and

took care to match the film speed. Mr. Mandl agreed that a

skillful forger could match film grain patterns in a composite

picture. Mr. Newbould said he believed that grain patterns could

be matched in a fake photo, but he added that he wanted more

information before commenting further on my question. Mr. Mandl

and Mr. Newbould were the only two persons that I asked to

comment on this topic.

------------------------

Mr. Mee's Qualifications

------------------------

Mr. Mee is a Depart of Defense (DOD) photographer and photo lab

technician. He has worked in photography for 18 years. He has

been a DOD photographer and photo lab technician for 10 years.

Among other things, Mr. Mee has studied and had on-the-job

training in negative retouching, print development, shadows,

and negative analysis.

In addition, he has had technical courses in color print

development and color negative development at the Winona School

of Photography, which is affiliated with the Professional

Photographers of America School. He has also had courses in

automatic printing and in using computer video analyzers at the

KODAK School of Photography in Rochester, New York.

-----------------------

Transcript of Interview

-----------------------

[Mr. Mee and MTG watch a segment on the DeMohrenschildt photo

from Jack White's video FAKE: THE FORGED PHOTO THAT FRAMED LEE

HARVEY OSWALD. The segment is about the DeMohrenschildt photo

and how its superior detail and clarity indicate that it was

taken with a different, better camera.]

MTG. All right, the thing about the DeMohrenschildt photo not

being a copy of 133-A because it has much better detail and a

larger background. Does that make sense?

MR. MEE. It wouldn't be a copy of 133-A if it had more detail

because, if anything, the reverse would be true, since you always

lose, you never gain, when you copy something. You lose detail,

definition, and contrast is built up. You start to lose your

gray tones, which hold most of your detail, and it starts to go

into shadow or [tape unclear]. So, it wouldn't be a copy.

The DeMohrenschildt photo would not be a copy of 133-A.

MTG. Could it have been printed off of the negative of 133-A,

even though it has better contrast and everything? I mean, Jack

White seems to think that because the DeMohrenschildt photo

has such better quality, that it must have been made with a

better camera. Is it logical to assume that it was taken with

a better camera?

MR. MEE. There are two possibilities that come to mind. That is

one of them--that it was done with a better camera. The other

one is that it was an earlier copy of the negative and that 133-A

is a second- or third-generation copy. To say that the

DeMohrenschildt photo was done with a better quality camera is

possible, and, it is likely, in this situation, the more probable

of the two choices.

MTG. Let me just see how we're sounding so far.

[Audio tape is stopped, rewound some, and then played back to

check sound quality. Mr. Mee and MTG then watch Jack White video

segment on how the frame edge markings and scratches could have

been produced.]

MTG. Your comments on that?

MR. MEE. One comment is on the theory that you an oval cutout

area was filled in with a figure. Cutting an oval out and then

inserting a body and then a head--I think that would be just too

difficult to accomplish without leaving tell-tale signs. You're

allowing too many areas where your tampering can be detected.

You're multiplying your suspected area by a whole bunch, as

opposed to just putting the head on and [tape unclear]. That

would be a little bit easier to do. That could be done. But

when you have to retouch such a large area, I think that would be

picked up. It would leave too many tell-tale signs. I wouldn't

really agree with that.

MTG. So, then, the first way that White suggested, of making an

exposure with just the edge markings on it, and then combining

this with the composite photo. . . .

MR. MEE. Yes, that could be done. It's feasible to do something

like that. The process of the sandwiching, though, might be a

little difficult to hide. This is not to say that it couldn't

be done, but then you'd be dealing with another negative and

probably with different characteristics.

But, the idea that a negative was shot that just had the edge

markings on it, and only the edge markings--something like that

would be difficult to achieve.

If you took the film and wound it across the IR camera without

making an exposure, and then developed that negative, you'd have

a clear type of, well, what we call an overlay, which you could

combine with a picture, instead of actually shooting any type of

picture through the IR camera. You see, otherwise, as soon as

you--even with the cap on--as soon as you open that up, you're

still going to get some type of traces of a different negative.

Now you could sandwich them together, and, again, we're talking

about making a print, and then working with that print and then

copying it. So that's a possibility. Something along those

lines. I wouldn't go so far as to say that's how they did it,

but it could have been done in this fashion.

MTG. So they, possibly, took some film, dragged it across the

film plane aperture, but did not snap a picture? Then, they

took the film out and that would have given them an overlay?

MR. MEE. Yes, that would give you an acetate overlay, a clear

film. Once you develop it, since it hasn't been struck by

light, it will come out clear. So then, you could place your

composite onto the acetate overlay and make a print and then copy

the print with a different camera. It would be possible to do

that.

MTG. So what would. . . .

MR. MEE. But there's one thing: Keep in mind that if you

copied the print with the IR, you would have multiple streaks and

edge marks. And you would probably have a shadowing type of

effect, or a ghosting type of effect, where you'd get one and

then another one close by. Even if they had tried to drag the

film through the camera again exactly as they had done before, I

think you would still be able to pick up slight variations in the

marks with a microscope.

MTG. Okay.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on the fact

that the photographic panel omitted the nose, earlobe, and chin

measurements in the backyard photos from its Penrose study.]

MTG. Comments?

MR. MEE. Just pretty much what I said last time. You don't do

that kind of a study and then leave out relevant measurements.

I'm surprised that the chin measurement wasn't considered. The

guys on that panel knew that the chin in these pictures was a

disputed area, according to the other articles that you gave me.

MTG. Oh, yes. They knew. The chin had been disputed for a long

time before that.

MR. MEE. Uh-huh. Well, that just makes it harder to understand

how they could have left it out when they did their calculations.

MTG. Could they have done this because the chin, and the other

things, threw off the total measurements too much?

MR. MEE. Let me put it this way: I don't know what they would

have left out ANY measurements, especially the chin, of all

things.

[Mr. Mee and MTG then view Jack White video segment on the

idea that the DeMohrenschildt photo was somehow produced without

the IR camera negative, and that the backyard photos could have

been made prior to being made with the IR camera.]

MTG. Any comments on that?

MR. MEE. It's quite possible.

MTG. So the DeMohrenschildt picture indicates that the backyard

photos could have been made before they were made with the IR

camera and that a better camera was used? I mean. . . .

MR. MEE. I think I know what you're getting at. When you

start talking about high-quality cameras, you're talking about

the lens not as much as the camera, and you would use a high-

quality lens to copy things, because you want to try to reduce

the aberrations and the contrasts, and all the things that go

with an inferior-quality lens when you're copying. You're

already losing something. You don't want to lose anything else.

So you use the best type of lens that you can get. So, that's

consistent with what would be normal practice if you had a

picture that was being worked on. You would copy that picture

with a more expensive camera, to preserve as much of the quality

as possible.

And, with the edge markings, you're talking about more of an

original type of negative, or rather an original type of a print

from a full negative. That's not to say that would be

the original print, or the original negative. You could take

a print and copy it, and you would still get the edge markings,

but it would be printed full negative, as in the case of the

DeMohrenschildt photo. That would be the only difference,

whereas with the other pictures you might not be seeing the

full print.

During that time [the 1960s], they would do a certain amount of

cropping on the edges. This is done quite often with automatic

printers. You'll look at the picture and say, "Wait a second.

Why is this person's hand cut off, when I can see it on the

negative?" So that's pretty customary.

MTG. How much of the picture on the negative would one usually

expect to be cropped? I mean, like, if you were going to give a

percentage, would you say it would be cropped 20 percent? Ten

percent?

MR. MEE. Well, you can't really say, because it depends on the

format. It depends on a lot of factors. It depends on the

machine you're using. It depends on the enlarger you're using,

and the operator who's using it. It gets back to format. For

example, say you've got a 35mm negative. To get a 35mm print,

full negative--for instance in a 7 X 10. . . . [pauses] But most

people don't have 7 X 10 frames; they have 8 X 10 frames. So,

what has to happen is that it has to be blown up so that the 7

goes to an 8, but then you have to cut off the edges. In that

situation, you would cut off about 20 percent of the picture. So

that's one example of how cropping can come into play. There are

a lot of variables. It's hard to say.

MTG. Okay. So now. . . .

MR. MEE. I would say that normally, when you're copying a

picture, you'll want to crop in enough to where you can't see the

edging. Your attempt is to try to get in as much of the original

picture as possible, if you're trying to get the fullest picture

possible without the edging.

To get in as much as possible, you'd cut it really close. You'd

want to crop it enough so that you couldn't see whatever was on

the edges. You wouldn't want to be able to see the edging of the

picture which has a texture and has fibers in it.

MTG. Before we move on to other areas, am I right in saying

that it is your position that the presence of the frame edge

markings and the scratches alone is not absolute proof of the

backyard photos' authenticity?

MR. MEE. Right. I'm not convinced that those markings prove

that the photos weren't doctored.

MTG. Okay. The next area, then.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on Oswald's

expression in the backyard photos. White's view is that the

person in the picture could not have gone from the smile

to the frown without noticeably moving surrounding facial

muscles.]

MTG. Any comments on that?

MR. MEE. Well, I don't think that's a significant piece of

evidence. Every person is different. The degree that you're

smiling or frowning can be ever so subtle. The facial muscles

don't have to change that much. They [the other muscles]

wouldn't necessarily be noticed in these photographs.

Granted, if he had a big grin, it would change a lot of different

things. It would change smile lines, the way the light hits him,

what kinds of shadows would be created. Or, if he had a big

frown. The difference in expression in those two photographs

appears to be ever so slight, but it's hard to tell without

looking at enlargements of the originals. It's possible that the

frown or the smile was retouched. Both could have been

retouched.

MTG. The HSCA photographic panel said that the different

expressions--the smile and the frown--showed that this was not

the same head pasted onto separate photographs.

MR. MEE. Right. Well, it's possible that the mouth was

retouched. The heads in the photos could be the same head. But,

I don't think that that argument alone is a strong argument for

saying that the same head appears in all the photos. There are

other things that are more compelling as evidence that the same

head was used. The mouth could have been retouched.

Or, there could have been more than one photograph taken of his

[Oswald's] head, and then those pictures could have been used in

the photos. You could use two heads just as easily as you could

use one. But that wouldn't change the problems with the lighting

characteristics, the shadows. If two photos of the head were

used, they were photographed in one setting, and with the head in

the same position in each picture.

MTG. Right. Oh, by the way, it's interesting that Kirk and

McCamy criticized Jack White's use of overlays, but in order to

detect the smile and the frown they themselves used overlays.

MR. MEE. Yeah. [Mr. Mee smiles noticeably as he says this.]

MTG. Okay, let's see. Where's my copy of the extract? Oh, yes.

I'd like to ask you about the two other things that were

mentioned as evidence that the same head was not used, namely the

differences in the eyes and the puffing of the lower lip in the

frown.. The argument is that this is more evidence that the

heads aren't all the same.

MR. MEE. Well, you could make that argument. I'm not ruling out

the possibility that two heads were used. The differences in the

eyes would indicate that more than one photo of the head was

used. But, from looking at these photographs here, it's hard for

me to tell.. [Mr. Mee points to the mouth and the eyes, and then

pauses to examine the photos.]

Could we look at that segment again? What I want to see is that

part that shows the head enlarged.

MTG. Sure.

[The portion of the video segment showing the head enlargements

is replayed twice. Mr. Mee then looks at the book copies of the

photos again.]

MR. MEE.. I can see a slight difference in the eyes. But, you

can't say that these things couldn't have been retouched either.

I really wish. . . .

MTG. Including the. . . . Oh, I'm sorry.

MR. MEE. No, go ahead.

MTG. Including the eyes? The eyes could have been retouched?

MR. MEE. The eyes could have been retouched. But, on the other

hand, when you're looking at a negative, and you're trying to

determine which photo goes with which negative, one of the things

you look for is the subtlety of the smile, because it can change,

ever so slightly. So, it's possible that more than one

photograph of Oswald's head was used.

It's hard to tell from the pictures I'm looking at here. If I

had the originals, I could make a better determination. After

looking at the enlargements on the video, and at all these

copies [of the photos] again, my guess would be that two pictures

of the head were used, and that the head was photographed at

around noon. But, when the one head was put on at a tilt, the

nose and eye shadows were overlooked. That [the idea that two

head pictures were used] would be the more logical assumption.

But, again, this isn't to say that the mouth and eyes couldn't

have been retouched enough to create these differences. I'd

really have to look at the originals.

MTG. Okay. McCamy also brought up the fact that the lower

lip. . . .

[side one of the first tape runs out. The tape is flipped over

and reinserted into the recorder.]

MTG. Okay. We got cut off there. I was going to ask you about

the puffing out of the lower lip.

MR. MEE. Yes. That really doesn't say a whole lot in terms of

whether or not there's been retouching or if more than one photo

of the head was used.

MTG. Okay. I've got another segment I'd like to show you.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on the stance

of the figure in the backyard photos.]

MTG. Okay. The problem with the center of weight and also with

the stance when the figure is reversed--any comments?

MR. MEE. Well, I'm not sure exactly what Mr. White's trying to

say by pointing this out. Granted, the figure is standing there

in an awkward position, regardless of the head. The head here

doesn't seem to have any bearing on how this person is standing.

Maybe that's what he's trying to point out.

But the nature of photography is that you're catching the subject

in an instant. And to say that people stand or walk around all

the time in complete balance is not feasible. We see people off

balance in photographs all the time. He [the figure in the

backyard photos] could have been shifting his weight, or starting

to walk, or taking a step backwards. There are a lot of

different things that he could have done to make his stance look

odd. It does look odd, mind you. Certainly it does look odd.

But I don't know that you can say that the stance is not natural.

MTG. What about the claim that the figure's center of gravity

lies outside his weight-bearing foot? If this is actually the

case, what would that mean?

MR. MEE. Well, to me it is a moot point. People don't always

stand perfectly balanced. You see this all the time. I don't

know exactly what the suggestion is here. If it's that the body

was retouched in some way, I'd have a problem with that. I don't

know why, if someone went to such lengths to fake these

photographs--I don't know why they would need to retouch the legs

or the upper body.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on the conflicting

body shadows.]

MR. MEE. Can we watch that segment again?

[Video segment is shown several times.]

MTG. Comments?

MR. MEE. Well, something is definitely wrong with the body

shadows. I don't see quite the difference that Mr. White does,

but I do see a difference. I don't know that I would say that

one body shadow is right at ten o'clock and that the other one is

right at twelve o'clock.

MTG. Well, I think he's phrasing the differences in terms

of approximations. In other words, he's not saying that one's in

a perfect ten o'clock position and that the other's right at a

twelve o'clock position. Let's watch the segment again.

MR. MEE. Okay.

[Video segment is reviewed again.]

MTG. You see what I mean?

MR. MEE. Right. Okay. And, as I said, I can see that there's a

difference in the body shadows. They seem to have been made

at different times of the day.

Now, if I you wanted to make every possible allowance for body

movement or camera movement, or both, I could see how you could

perhaps say that the time difference between these pictures was a

matter of minutes, several minutes, as far as when the body

shadows were made. I could see how you could reach this

conclusion.

MTG. Uh-huh.

MR. MEE. Now, the shadows cast by the head and the neck in

133-A--they look odd to me.

MTG. How so?

MR.. MEE. Well, the shadow of the neck looks too narrow. And the

head--I don't know if its shadow should angle off that much, when

it doesn't do that in B or C. The shadow cast by the neck is

thicker in B and C too. These could be real shadows, mind you,

but they do look a little off to me.

MTG. Uh-huh.

MR. MEE. It's hard to say, though. It would really help if I

could look at the originals. Again, they could be real shadows.

I'm just saying that looking at them here, they do seem a little

strange.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on the fact that

in 133-C the body shadow runs up onto the fence, whereas the

body shadows in A and B don't.]

MTG. Comments?

MR. MEE. Well, to say that these photographs were taken within

seconds of each other, I think, is impossible. There's just too

much variance in the directions in the body shadows. They [the

body shadows] have definitely changed positions.

Now, about that C photograph--and, again, this is without looking

at the original--but what could cause that [the shadow running up

onto the fence] would be if the figure were a little farther

back. You've got to consider any lean, too. The weight shift

here [in 133-C], so that he's leaning back more, could cause

the shadow to go up onto the fence.. It wouldn't take that much

of a shift or lean to make it go up onto the fence. I don't

think that's an unreasonable amount. I mean, you can see this

for yourself by standing in front of a bright light. You can see

how much you can change the length of your shadow just by leaning

a little bit.

MTG. Okay. So the body shadow on the fence, that is, the head

going up onto the fence, could be due to a slight shift or lean?

MR. MEE. Right. And, by the way, I think the suggestion that

two different people were used, wearing the same clothes, is

really unlikely. I don't think they would have used two

different bodies, especially ones that were different heights.

MTG. Right. That makes sense.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on the blurriness

of the right-hand fingers in 133-A.]

MTG. Okay. On the blurriness of the fingers on his right hand.

MR. MEE. Well, yeah, that's the way it appears. But that could

have been caused by a couple different things. He could have

been moving that hand. Or, light might have been reflecting off

the newspaper and into the shadow areas of the hand, which would

take away some of the detail around the fingers. If his hand

were slightly angled, just ever so slightly, and with the

reflection from the newspaper, that would make the fingers look

stubby too. Those are more likely possibilities. I don't know

why a retouch artist would have tampered with anything in that

area.

MTG. Yeah, you'd think they would have had the guy just hold the

newspapers, and so they wouldn't have to do any retouching there.

MR. MEE. Right.

MTG. Okay. Now, in this next segment. . . . Well, let's take

a look at it.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on White's finding

that when he enlarged the figure in 133-A to match Oswald's

height of 5 feet 9 inches, the length of the rifle was too long,

and that when be brought the rifles to the same size, to match

the alleged murder weapon's official size of 40.2 inches, the

figure appeared to be six inches too short.]

MTG. Okay. What are your thoughts on this?

MR. MEE. The person's height could be different, and that would

be another indication of fraud in these photos. I don't know

why they would have used a stand-in who was so much shorter than

Oswald, though. You'd think they would have gotten someone who

was about Oswald's height.

MTG. Along that line, one of the Oswald impersonators was

said by two or three witnesses to be quite a bit shorter than

Oswald.

MR. MEE. Huh. That's interesting. Well, I'd have to examine

Mr. White's methodology more closely before I reached any

conclusions here, though. When you're doing these kinds of

comparisons, you've got to figure in other factors, like

whether or not there was any tilting of the camera, how the

person was standing, the relationship to other objects in the

picture, that sort of thing. But. . . .

MTG. Does the figure look like it's leaning or tilted very much?

MR. MEE. Well, I was just about to say that the figure doesn't

look like he's leaning to the point that it would be that hard to

determine the height.. He appears to be standing pretty much

straight up. Now, you don't know exactly how the camera was

being held, but I wouldn't guess that it was held way off

balance, to look at these pictures.

[Phone rings. Tape recorder is placed on pause. After MTG

hangs up the phone, the interview is resumed but the recorder is

accidentally left on pause. After about a minute, MTG realizes

that tape recorder is still on pause.]

MTG. Okay. We had a little snafu there. Let me ask you

this again. What is your opinion of Jack White's work overall?

MR. MEE. Well, overall, I'd say it's pretty good. I don't agree

with some of it. I think he's reading too much into certain

things. But, in general, I think he's on the right track. I

mean, from everything I've seen so far, from all the copies and

everything that I've looked at so far, I would say he's made some

valid arguments.

MTG. Well, you know that British photographic expert mentioned

in the video, Jeffrey Crowley, looked at White's work and was

quite impressed with it.

MR. MEE. Uh-huh. Yeah, I remember that. I mean, the guy [Jack

White] does make some mistakes, but overall he makes a pretty

good case.

MTG. Okay. Fair enough.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view the Jack White video segment on the

conflict between the backyard figure's chin and Oswald's chin,

and on the line that goes from one side of the neck, across the

chin, to the other side of the neck.]

MTG. Okay. I think I'll bracket the issue of the shape of the

chin. I've got a lot of pictures of Oswald, going clear back

into his junior high or high school days, and they all show him

with a sharp, cleft chin. I know in his testimony, McCamy said

he found some pictures of Oswald as a youth in which his chin was

a little broader and slightly flat. Even Congressman Fithian

wasn't convinced, and I haven't found that to be the case at all

in the photos that I have of Oswald as a youth. This isn't the

issue anyway, since the backyard photos supposedly show Oswald

as an adult. And all the photos of Oswald as an adult show

him with a sharp, cleft chin. I'd like to return to the

issue of the chin later when we discuss McCamy's claim that

the edge of the chin disappears in shadow.

MR. MEE. Okay.

MTG. I'd also like to hold off on discussing the line across

the chin until we review McCamy's argument that it was caused

by a water spot. All right?

MR. MEE. That's fine.

MTG. I just wanted to show you that segment to provide some

background for when we get to those issues in a few minutes.

MR. MEE. All right.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on the conflicts

between the nose shadow and the neck and body shadows, and

on the non-movement of the nose shadow even when the head is

tilted.]

MTG. Comments?

MR. MEE. Well, I think this is the area where you get into the

most convincing evidence that these photographs have been

doctored--the lighting characteristics. You can see in these

photographs that the nose and eye shadows do not match the neck

shadow. They don't match the shadow that falls down from the

body either. They don't match. We only have one sun, and that's

the problem. Even if we had two suns, their light still could

not produce the differences in the shadows in the backyard

photos. And I think that all the things that that panel [the

photographic panel] cited to substantiate these photos aren't

nearly as important as the shadow characteristics.

MTG. I was going to ask you about that later, but as long

as we're on the subject. . . . Now, McCamy, instead of dealing

with the problems in the shadows themselves, appealed to a

vanishing point analysis. He never actually got around to

explaining why the nose and eye shadows drop straight down,

while, on the other hand, you have a big patch of light on the

left side of the neck; and why you have the body shadows in A and

C falling at about a ten o'clock position. Instead, of dealing

head-on with those problems, he appealed to a vanishing point

analysis. We'll get into this more later, but for right now I'd

like to ask you if you think that an analysis of that kind can

overrule what you're able to see in the photos themselves as far

as the contrasting shadows?

MR. MEE. No, not at all. The shadows themselves, the different

angles that they show, their shape, the areas that they should

cover but don't--these have got to be dealt with directly. No

form of analysis is going to convince me that those shadows are

not different shadow groups.

MTG. Okay. Now. . . .

MR. MEE. Let me give you a little background on why I say this.

There are a lot of ways to alter shadows in photography. But in

this situation, where the figure was outdoors, during the day,

and where there was only one light source, there is just no way

that all the shadows in these photos could have occurred at the

same time of day.

Now, it could be argued that the reason there is more light on

the neck in 133-A is that you're getting a reflection off the

newspaper, but in B and C the newspaper is out to the side,

and. . . .

MTG. The patch of light is still there. . . .

MR. MEE. It's still there. It's still consistent. And that

shouldn't be. Most of the neck on both sides should be in

shadow, to be consistent with the eye and nose shadows.

And the nose shadow should not stay in that V-shape, coming

straight down onto the upper lip, when the head is tilted. Now,

with the tilt of the head here, you wouldn't see a big difference

in the nose shadow, but you would see some difference. The shape

and the angle would change. It [the nose shadow] shouldn't look

like that with the head tilted.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on two unnatural

bulges in the backyard photos, one in the neck in 133-A and the

other in the post in 133-B, and on the fact that these bulges are

parallel to each other.]

MR. MEE. Can we see that again?

[Video segment is replayed several times.]

MTG. On the bulges. Any comments on the bulges and on the fact

that they're parallel to each other? Could it be that a

retoucher might have goofed on the neck, spotted it, and then

decided to move the goof to the post in the hope that if he

moved it to a background image it would be less noticeable?

MR. MEE. Even good retouchers sometimes make small errors. I

can see the bulges. I can see what he's [Mr. White's] talking

about here. This goes along with the theory that these are

composite photographs and that they would have required

retouching.

MTG. Now, in the photographic panel's report. . . . Well, the

panel apparently had a hard time explaining the bulge in the

post. The theory that the panel put in writing was that the

indentation was an optical illusion caused by the shadow of a

twig. . . .

[side two of the first tape runs out. Tape is removed, and

another tape is placed in the tape recorder.]

MTG. Okay. Let's go over that again. I'm going to read

the explanation given by the photographic panel:

What could be perceived as an indentation in the

post in CE 133-B is believed by the undersigned to

be an illusion resulting from the location of a

shadow of a branch or a leaf along the edge of the

post.

Okay, and you said you have a problem with that.

MR. MEE. Well, the problem I have with that, keeping in mind

the angle of the body shadows and others, is that a branch or a

leaf here would have been struck by sun coming from around a four

o'clock position. Therefore, a branch or leaf shadow here would

fall in about a ten or eleven o'clock position, and so I don't

think the bulge here could have resulted from a natural shadow.

With the sun coming in from a four o'clock angle, I don't see how

that bulge could have been caused by the shadow from a branch or

a leaf. The angle's not right. Can we look at the part about

this in the video again?

MTG. Sure..

[Video segment is replayed. Afterwards, Mr. Mee then examines

the book and xeroxed copies of the photos again.]

MR. MEE. No, I don't see how that bulge could have been caused

by a shadow from a branch or a leaf. I don't see it. The shadow

angle would be wrong. The sun's in the wrong position to do

that. I'd like to see the originals, though. For a small detail

like this, you want to look at the original photos.. But from

what I can see here, I really don't think this bulge was caused

by any kind of a branch or a leaf shadow--not with the sun

shining the way it is in these pictures.

What about the bulge in the neck? How do they explain it? I

didn't see that discussed anywhere in the extract.

MTG. No, Kirk and McCamy didn't deal with that. There's nothing

about it in that file [PHOTOS.ZIP]. I don't know if the panel's

report deals with it either. I don't think the panel tried to

explain it.. If they had offered an explanation, I think Groden

and Livingstone would have tried to answer it. I could be wrong,

though. It's kind of hard to believe they wouldn't have tried to

explain this, but I don't know. I still haven't gotten a copy of

the panel's report. So I really don't know.

MR. MEE. Okay. Well, that neck bulge needs to be explained. It

doesn't look natural, and it's parallel to the bulge in the post.

It disappears in 133-B, but then you have an indentation in the

post [in B].

MTG. Uh-huh. In his HSCA testimony, Jack White suggested that

the forger's knife slipped and caused the post bulge. Could

something like that have caused the bulge in the neck?

MR. MEE. Possibly. Something's definitely off there.

MTG. Oh, I wanted to ask you about McCamy's explanation of the

indentation in the post.

MR. MEE. All right.

MTG. Let me read it here. He was referring to a computer

printout that was produced by digital image processing.

Our inspection of this leads us to believe that

the apparent indentation is simply a shadow,

because if you look very carefully, you can see

the post running through that area, and this is

just a slight darkening. So that was merely a

shadow.

MR. MEE. No, I don't think that's consistent with the direction

of the sun in the pictures. It's not consistent with the way the

bulge looks.

MTG. So, just to summarize, you're saying that the sun,

according to the body shadow, isn't in a position where it

could cause a shadow that would produce the indentation

in the post?

MR. MEE. That's how it looks to me.

MTG. Just to let you know, to my knowledge the panel never

identified which leaf or branch could have possibly caused such a

shadow. They simply said the bulge COULD have been caused by the

shadow from a leaf or a branch, but they didn't say which leaf or

branch.

MR. MEE. Okay.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on the fact that

a patch of sunlight on the side of the house beside the post

holding the stairway does not change shape in any of the backyard

pictures, indicating that the camera making the photo did not

move horizontally. This patch of light is to the left of the

post and is roughly parallel with the figure's right elbow.]

MTG. Now, on the non-movement of that one shadow underneath

the stairway. If it doesn't change shape or position, even

though the pictures were supposedly taken with a hand-held

camera, what does that say? I'm asking this because, supposedly,

she [Marina] took the first picture. Snap. Then, Oswald came,

took the camera from her, advanced the film, handed it back to

her, and then went back to where he was. She then had to and

position the camera again. And then this process was REPEATED

for the third picture. So how could that patch of light not

change in some way?

MR. MEE. The possibility that that patch of light would stay

in the same position and maintain the same shape after all that

movement is remote. You'd need a tripod, and even then you'd

have to be careful. Can we see that again?

[Video segment is replayed several times.]

MR. MEE. I think I can see what he's talking about, but can we

look at that a couple more times?

[Video segment is replayed two more times.]

MR. MEE. Okay, let me take another look at these pictures really

quickly.

MTG. Oh, sure. Take your time.

[Mr. Mee studies pictures for approximately one minute.]

MTG. Do you see what he's talking about?

MR. MEE. Yes. I would agree with that.

MTG. So wouldn't that be almost impossible using a hand-held

camera, especially given the way that these pictures were

supposedly taken?

MR. MEE. I would say it would be nearly impossible. The chances

of something like that happening would be astronomically small.

MTG. All right. . . .

MR. MEE. Even if you were using a modern camera, one that would

automatically advance the film after each shot, and were taking

a series of pictures, your chances of achieving that effect

would be low. They'd be better, but still very low.

MTG. All right. Now, if I'm not mistaken, I think we have just

one more segment.

[MTG starts to play the video tape and then realizes there are no

more video segments.]

MTG. Nope. That was it. That was the last of the segments.

MR. MEE. All right.

MTG. Okay. Now, a little while back, I got a message on

CompuServe from a gentleman named Paul Burke. In reference to

Jack White's secondary method for producing the frame edge

markings on the photos, he said, "Copying a photo assembled from

a group of photos as you and others have postulated using the

Imperial Reflex camera has a problem. Its focus ability, if any,

is limited, so the master montage would have to be large, a

couple of feet or so," which you said last time you didn't argue

with. . . .

MR. MEE. Right.

MTG. Okay, and then he continues, "and it would have all sorts

of granular discontinuities between the segments making it up,

such as sharp lines for the cuts, etc., etc."

MR. MEE. Well, I'd have to know more about the scenario he

has in mind. What are we talking about here? I mean, how

were the first pictures taken? What was in them? How many

copies are we talking about?

The appearance of your final product will depend on several

factors. It's going to depend on things like the quality of your

original photos, the camera, the enlarging equipment and

materials, and the retouching. There are a lot of things

that would come into play.

As far as size goes, it probably would be a rather large

photograph in this scenario. Your composite--it would have to be

a rather big picture. With the lighting in these pictures [the

backyard photos], I would guess that they used medium-speed film.

But there are so many things you'd have to establish first before

you made a judgment. And, also, the farther down the line you go

from your original, the more quality you're going to lose.

MTG. Okay. . . .

MR. MEE. Another thing--these pictures ARE grainy. I'm talking

about A, B, and C. They are not that sharp. They do have a

lot of texture and grain to them. Plus, you've got that

tell-tale line running across the chin, and the other things

[i.e., the bulge in the neck in 133-A and the indentation in the

post in 133-B].

MTG. All right. This thing about the chin, the lines across the

chin in 133-A. Now, in the extract, we read that McCamy was

POSITIVE that the line that runs from one side of the neck to the

other, crossing the chin--that that line was caused by a water

spot. The panel as a whole, however, did not go this far. In

the report it says that the cause of the lines has not been

definitely determined. But I wanted to ask you what you thought

of McCamy's explanation?

MR. MEE. Well, I was reading through that, and I had some

problems with it. The. . . .

[side one of second tape runs out. Tape is flipped over, and

the interview resumes.]

MTG. Okay. So you said you had some problems with McCamy's

explanation, with his claim that the irregular line across

the chin was caused by a water spot. This is the line that

Jack White mentions as well.

MR. MEE. Well, there are a couple things. One thing is the

sheer coincidence that this line just happens to fall in the chin

area; that this one edge of this one particular water spot is

supposed to have left deposits in such a way as to form a line

that coincidentally starts at one side of the neck, crosses the

chin, and then ends at the other side--right where Oswald's head

could have been attached to the body. I mean, this would be a

good place to join a head to a body in a composite, in the chin

area, and here we have a line in that region, and it's supposed

to be a water spot.

The other problem I have with what he says has to do with

his statements about the line as a photographic image.

MTG. Now, this is just before he starts talking about water

spots. You're talking about where he says the line isn't a

photographic image.

MR. MEE. Right.

MTG. Again, that line is the one that Jack White discusses in

the video, the one that starts off on one side of the upper neck,

crosses the chin, and then goes to the other side of the neck.

MR. MEE. Right.

MTG. Just to give us some context here, why don't I go

ahead and read exactly what he said about the line.

MR. MEE. Okay.

MTG. Let's see. . . . Here it is. This was McCamy.

Now that fine line is actually too fine to be a

photographic image. The photographic image is

made

up of silver grains, and these grains are

distributed all through here, so we have a good

idea of their size and distribution. This line is

a line that is much finer than the silver grains

themselves. It is much too continuous to be a

photographic line. A line that had been

photographed from some kind of montage would have

had the grain pattern of a discontinuous line, but

this line is quite continuous. Indeed, we can

follow this line down up to here and then back

around to here. It is a closed loop.

MR. MEE. Now, when you talk about what has been photographed--

what you see in the picture--that has no bearing on the grains in

the negative emulsion. The grains are more a characteristic of

the film itself than what has been produced from a photographic

print. So, when he ways, "This line is a line that is much finer

than the silver grains themselves. This is much too continuous

to be a photographic line"--this, to me, holds no water at all.

He's looking at the A print, not at the negative, so his argument

holds no water.

[Mr. Mee again reads from the extract] "A line that had been

photographed from some kind of montage would have had the

grain pattern of a discontinuous line." Now, again, that's

coming from a print, but what you'd need to look at would be the

negative, and he didn't examine the A negative. So his

argument is not valid. It doesn't prove anything. You see,

the grain is a characteristic of the negative, not the print.

I mean, even forgetting about that part of his argument, what

he's saying is that it [the line] doesn't have a grain pattern

running through it. The line is so fine that he says it's

getting in between the grain, which would put it in the emulsion.

It's like a sandwich, kind of like with two pieces of plastic,

and then the water spot would be sitting on top. But I think

that would be so obvious that there would be no doubt about it.

When he says the line on the chin is part of a closed loop, I'm

sort of at a disadvantage because I don't have the exhibit he was

using. So it's hard for me to comment. But if that irregular

line is part of a closed loop and was caused by a water spot,

then the loop is the outline of the water spot. Now that line is

almost straight, and water spots don't normally have edges like

that. I mean, water spots . . . well . . . they're just that--

they're spots. They're usually more oblique. They're not going

to have long straight edges.

And I'd like to see where the other edges of this loop are. I

mean, they don't seem to be in the face. Just looking at these

pictures here, I can see the line across the chin, but I don't

see any other tell-tale lines in the face. So I'd like to know

where the other edges [of the loop] are.

MTG. Okay. What I'd like to do now is ask you about McCamy's

point concerning what they saw when they examined the negative,

the 133-B negative, with a phase contrast microscope. Let me

just read that part, okay?

MR. MEE. Sure.

MTG. [Reading from the extract]

We examined the negative with a phase contrast

microscope, which would detect very, very small

changes in thickness in the negative.

He didn't come right out and say it, but I assume he was saying

that they checked the negative with that high-powered microscope

and didn't find any changes in thickness in the chin area in the

negative.

MR. MEE. Well, the thickness of the negative is not necessarily

going to be relevant. What I'm saying is that the original

photograph could have been copied and then a negative could have

been made from that. So you're not going to see any difference

in density in the negative if the negative came from a retouched

photo.

MTG. Uh-huh. Oh, let's go back to the water spot for just a

second if we could. I wanted to ask you something else about

what McCamy said about it.

MR. MEE. Okay.

MTG. He said, "We did not see water spots. . . ." Now, in the

extract the word "not" is missing, but it's obvious that that's

what he was saying. As you read on, it's obvious that that's

what he was saying. [Resumes reading]

We did not see water spots on 133-B, but we do see

that this same spot occurs on both of these first-

generation prints of the A negative, so we know

that the spot must have been on the negative.

Any comments on that?

MR. MEE. Well, to me, what he's saying is inconsistent. He's

saying that the water spot had to be on the A negative because

it's on the print, and that it's not part of the photographic

image. But unless you see the negative, you can't really say

that.

MTG. Now, just for the record here, let me read what the

[photographic] panel said about the irregular lines that

appeared on the scanned image of the B negative. I'm reading

from Groden and Livingstone's book HIGH TREASON.

MR. MEE. Yes.

MTG. Let me go ahead and read that out of the book.

MR. MEE. Okay.

MTG. They're quoting directly from the photographic panel's

report. Let's see. . . . Here it is. [Reads from page

201 of HIGH TREASON]

Under very carefully adjusted display conditions,

the scanned image of the Oswald backyard negative

did exhibit irregular, very fine lines in the chin

area.

The panel went on to say that the lines were probably caused

by "very faint water stains." Comments?

MR. MEE. Yes, I meant to ask you about their reference to

"lines," not just a single line. What other lines did they find?

MTG. You know, to be honest, I don't know. I've wondered about

that myself, because McCamy only mentioned one line that was

found with digital image scanning.

MR. MEE. Huh. Well, as far as what we just read, I would

say it's evidence of tampering. I don't accept the idea that

that line across the chin was caused by a water spot, at least

not at this stage I don't. Now, again, I haven't seen the

exhibit that shows the shape of the water spot that McCamy says

caused the line, but I'd be surprised if it caused me to change

my mind. I just don't think a water spot would leave that kind

of a line.

MTG. Okay. . . .

[side two of second tape runs out. That tape is removed from the

tape recorder and is replaced with the third tape.]

MTG. Okay. Now, McCamy said that they examined the chin area

with digital image processing and that they didn't find any

granular inconsistencies.

MR. MEE. Well, if you matched the film speed, using the kind of

film that was common back then, it would be hard to prove

something either way. Back then there was pretty much one way of

making film.

If you had a forger who knew his stuff and who knew the kinds

of things that would be checked for later on, you'd have to

guess that he would have done his best to match the grain

characteristics. This wouldn't have been impossible. If

he had access to the negatives of the pictures of Oswald's

head, it could have been done.

What I'm saying is that the tampering, the pasting of the head

onto the figure's chin, could have been done well enough to where

they [the members of the photographic panel] would not have been

able to pick it up with the technology that they had at that

time.

MTG. Ah, here's the part I was looking for you. If I could,

I'd like to read this to you. This is about the grain pattern

again.

One of the things that we wanted to do was to

study the nature of the silver grain in the areas

above the chin and below the chin, because of the

allegation that there were two different

photographs in some way. And so we did

that. . . . And as photographic scientists, we

found nothing remarkable about the grain pattern.

This was the same type of grain pattern.

MR. MEE. But, again, if the forger matched up the film, there

wouldn't be any noticeable difference in the grain. It [digital

image processing] would be inconclusive. Now, I'm not saying

this would not be an easy process. It would all depend on if

you had the negatives of the pictures of the head.

MTG. To match the film, you mean.

MR. MEE. Right. But it could be done. With the way film was

made back then--there was pretty much one way of making film--if

you matched the film speed, assuming you had access to the

negative of each head shot you were using, you could match the

film characteristics.

MTG. So your position is that the things that they claimed to

have observed through digital image processing in and of

themselves cannot prove that these are authentic photographs?

MR. MEE. No, I don't think that digital image processing alone

can prove these photographs are authentic. With the technology

that was available back then [in the late 1970s], I don't think

they could have proven this. I don't know that it could be done

today--possibly, with the scanning technology that's just

coming out, you could do it. It would depend on how carefully

the forger matched the film and on what steps he went through to

fake the photographs.. There are a lot of variables.

MTG. All right. Vanishing point analysis. I'm a layman, and

when I read this, I got the impression that they didn't want to

deal with the shadow angles themselves, so they resorted to

this vanishing point analysis. They tried to explain all the

shadow problems in the pictures--the neck, the nose and the eyes,

the body shadows--with vanishing point analysis. Let me read

this so we have some context here:

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. McCamy, how did the panel

address the question of the shadows in the

backyard pictures?

Mr. MCCAMY. This was addressed by a vanishing

point analysis.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. What do you mean by "vanishing

point analysis"?

Mr. MCCAMY. The sun is very distant, so far away

that we can consider it to be at infinity, and as

a result, if we draw a line from an object to the

shadow of the object, and we do this in a number

of places in a scene, all of those lines are

parallel lines.

Now you may recall, if you have ever seen a

photograph of railroad tracks disappearing into

the distance, the photograph shows those two rails

converging at a point. That is called the

vanishing point. The rails are parallel but in

the photograph they converge. This is taught in

art courses in high school and in mechanical

drawing, so the converging of parallel lines is a

well-known matter of perspective. In a photograph

one should expect that these parallel shadow lines

should converge at the vanishing point. . . .

Mr. MCCAMY. Yes. Here we have 133-A and 133-B. A

line is drawn from a part of this stairway, past

the shadow of the stairway, down to here. A line

is drawn from the butt of the pistol, through the

shadow of the butt of the pistol, down to here,

from the arm to the shadow of the arm, down to

here. And when we do this for all the points in

the photograph, we find that they all meet at a

point, as they should.

Now this is the line that passes through the nose

and the chin down to here, and that one is the

nose to the shadow of the nose. That is the one

thing that has been disputed so frequently, and

if you do the analysis properly, you see that the

shadow lies right where it is supposed to lie.

The same thing is true over here. Here we have the

muzzle of the rifle, the shadow of the muzzle of

the rifle, and so on down the line.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. McCamy, if the lines were not

parallel, would they all meet at one point as they

do in these two exhibits?

Mr. MCCAMY. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. If the lines in these two exhibits

had not met at one point, what conclusion or

inference might you have drawn?

Mr. MCCAMY. We might have drawn the conclusion

that something had been drawn in rather than

traced in by the hand of nature.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Did you do a similar vanishing

point analysis for 133-C?

Mr. MCCAMY. Yes..

Mr. GOLDSMITH. And what were the results?

Mr. MCCAMY. The results were the same.

Now, when you read on, however, it gets a little more

interesting. McCamy was asked about the sharp angles of the

lines in his analysis. I'll find it here. It jumped out at me

as soon as I read it. [MTG looks through extract for a few

seconds] Okay. Here it is. Let me read this. He [McCamy]

was being questioned by Congressman Fithian, who was the only

guy to ask any challenging questions. He [Fithian] said,

This morning I was listening carefully when you

described the vanishing point concept, which I

find fascinating. But I wonder why did the

vanishing point lines converge in such a very,

very short distance on your chart.

Now, I look at a railroad, even an artist's

conception of a railroad track, or a road where it

sort of narrows off. It gives me the impression

that we are talking about, you know, great

distances.

Yet, there are some very, very sharp angles that

those lines from the bush and the nose and the

rest of it come in, all within 2 feet on your

chart. Could you explain that optical problem

that I am having?

And here's McCamy's answer:

Yes. The vanishing point may be at infinity; that

is, if we have parallel vertical lines and the

axis of the camera is horizontal. Then we do get

parallel lines, and of course that says that the

vanishing point is at infinity.

Now, a very slight tilt of the camera will cause a

convergence, but it would be a very slight

convergence. It starts at infinity and it begins

to move inward.

Now, on the photographs that we saw here, the

vanishing point of the shadows was substantially

below the photographs. If photographs had been

made later and later in that day, I have estimated

that these pictures were taken about 4 to 4:30 in

the afternoon--if pictures were made later, the

vanishing point would have continued to move up

until finally it would be within the picture area;

that is, as the Sun had moved behind the

photographer.

In the instance that you cite of the railroad

track disappearing into the distance, the

vanishing point is in the picture, and you

are seeing the vanishing point.

I think that is as far as I can go in describing

that phenomenon.. The vanishing point can be

anywhere from at infinity to right in the picture

itself.

Now, I didn't quite understand exactly how McCamy explained the

fact that the angles in his chart were so sharp and converged

in such a short distance.

MR. MEE. Well, not having looked at his chart, it's hard for

me to comment on it. I'd have to look at it and see exactly what

we're talking about. Those lines and sharp angles do sound odd,

but I'd need to see the chart itself before I could really form

an opinion here.

But, really, I understand the principle of vanishing points,

and I don't think it's relevant in this case. The real issue is

the conflicts between the shadows. And, another thing, I can

tell you that the sun that hit Oswald's face wasn't in a four

o'clock position. You've also get to deal with the absence of

shadow where there should be shadow. You've got to look at the

shadows themselves--study their angles, determine the direction

of your light source, those kinds of things.

I mean, a vanishing point analysis is not about to explain

why Oswald's nose shadow doesn't move or change form in the

photographs. It's not going to explain why you seem to have

two separate light sources hitting the body and the face. It's

not going to explain those bulges [in the neck and the post].

MTG. Okay. The disappearing chin. McCamy said that the

edge of the chin disappeared in shadow. Now, the problem he

was trying to explain is the fact that in the backyard photos

the chin is broad and flat, but in all other pictures of Oswald--

in all those that were taken from any kind of a frontal

viewpoint--his chin is sharp and cleft.

MR. MEE. It HAS disappeared in shadow, but not to the extent

that Oswald's would have, and that's the difference.

MTG. Okay. He [McCamy] was saying that Oswald's chin form

vanished to the point that in the picture it looks like he has a

broad, flat chin.

MR. MEE. No, I would disagree with that. The sun was not in

a position to have that much of an effect on the appearance of

the chin.

MTG. Uh-huh. Okay. Now, Mr. Fithian, bless his heart, he had

a problem with this, too. Here's part of the exchange he had

with McCamy:

Mr. FITHIAN. Here is a thing that I had the

greatest difficulty with in terms of my own

viewing of the photographs, is the squareness of

the chin.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we could ask that that

multiple photograph, that chart with half a dozen

Oswalds on it, plus the two, could be put back up.

While we are doing this, let me preface my

question by saying that sitting here and looking

at your exhibit, I did not visually at least

identify any other chin that was even

approximately as square as the one in the backyard

photograph--from all of the pictures that you put

up.

I could not see that. I hate to return to what you

have already done. But it still puzzles me and

troubles me. That seems to be one of the

strongest points of the critics, is the misshape

of the chin. I want to make sure I understood

your testimony.

It was your testimony that it was the light and

shadow combination of an overhead Sun or whatever?

Mr. MCCAMY. Yes.

Mr. FITHIAN. Do I understand you correctly?

Mr. MCCAMY. Yes.

Then they went on for a bit, and then Fithian continued:

Mr. FITHIAN. In the photo, in the two large

blowups, the right-hand photo, is it your

testimony, then, that the point of the chin, which

obviously doesn't disappear--and I find it

difficult to believe that just by changing your

teeth or your mouth position it really makes that

much difference--is it then that the point of the

chin disappears in the shadow of the chin in

layman's terms?

Is that what you are saying happens in that

photograph?

Mr. MCCAMY. Yes, the lower part of the chin is not

illuminated, so you don't see it. It just

disappears in the shadow.

MTG. Do you accept that?

MR. MEE. Well, such a thing is possible, but not in this

instance, because of the position of the sun.

MTG. And that is what?

MR. MEE. The position of the sun?

MTG. Yeah.

MR. MEE. Well, the sun is overhead and to his left.

MTG. Based on the body shadows, you mean?

MR. MEE. Yeah. The sunlight is coming down at him from about

a four o'clock position. So I don't see how it could have made

that much of his chin disappear. I mean, the underside of the

chin is in shadow, but the edge hasn't vanished. The form [of

the chin] is still there.

MTG. What if the sun came from right around a twelve o'clock

position?

MR. MEE. Well, then you'd have to explain why both sides of the

neck aren't in the same amount of shadow, and why the body shadow

falls off to his right.

MTG. Uh-huh.

MR. MEE. I mean, if anything, it seems like there's more chin

there, more than there should be, in terms of width, even if

you ignore how flat it is.

MTG. Yeah, I think so too.

MR. MEE. That's how it looks to me. I would say the chin is a

serious problem.

MTG. Uh-huh. Okay. Now, I'd like to ask you about the

fact that the panel found only very small variations in the

distances between objects in the background of the pictures.

Given the way that these photos were supposedly taken, does

that seem possible?

MR. MEE. No, the variations would be greater if these

photographs were taken the way Marina said they were. I mean,

like they showed in the video: She snaps a picture; Oswald walks

over and takes the camera from her; he advances the film; he

hands the camera back to her; he goes back over and assumes

another pose; she aims with the camera again and then takes the

picture; and they go through this process again for the third

photo. No. . . . No way. The camera would have moved more than

just a tiny fraction of an inch.

Even with a professional photographer who's trying to hold the

camera as still as possible, you're going to have more variations

in distance than what they're talking about in these pictures.

MTG. Now, Jack White mentioned that the small differences in

distance could have been produced by keystoning. What do you

think about that?

MR. MEE. Oh, I think he's right. Now, when he was demonstrating

the keystoning effect in the video, he was exaggerating a little

bit to help you understand what he was talking about, but he's

got the right idea. It would be a simple matter of tilting the

easel just a little bit. I mean, any slight movement in the

enlarger or the easel could cause the kinds of differences

they're talking about here.

MTG. Okay. Stereoscopic analysis. They said that when they

analyzed these photos, they were able to view them

stereoscopically. Let me just read some of what McCamy said:

We were able to view these photographs

stereoscopically, so we know that there was slight

camera movement. We know that there were two

pictures. But it has much more far reaching

consequence than that.

It tells us that there was a solid three

dimensional field that was photographed two times.

If one were to have photographed the background

once, and then taken a camera and photographed

that print and then rephotographed the print from

two angles, when that is viewed stereoscopically,

the human eye would tell you that you were looking

at a plane print. That isn't what we saw. We saw

depth, and we can still see depth.

Now if one were going to do art work on actual

stereo pairs, that art work has to be done

exceedingly meticulously, because the slightest

difference in the art work on one photograph and

the art work on the other photograph would cause

the points involved to appear to be too far away

or too close. They would tend to float in space.

So stereo viewing is an excellent way of checking

up on the authenticity of the photograph.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Is any special viewer necessary to

enable someone to see in stereo?

Mr. MCCAMY. It is not necessary but it makes it

more convenient for most people.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. How many panel members examined

these photographs in stereo?

Mr. MCCAMY. At least, oh, a half dozen.

MTG. Any thoughts about that?

MR. MEE. If you have slight movement during the enlarging

process or during the copying process, I think you could get a

different perspective in the photographs that would cause that

effect. So, that doesn't prove. . . . It doesn't convincingly

say that these pictures are authentic.

I mean, I think we've all at one time looked through those little

children's viewfinders and have seen those cartoon slides in

3-D. The reason you get that is that you're looking through two

different eyes and seeing the result of a slight movement of the

prints. The prints of the cartoons have been slightly moved--the

prints you're looking at through the viewfinder. You've got two

prints, and they've been moved slightly, and that's what gives

you your 3-D effect, the slight movement of those prints.

So, in the case of these photographs. . . .

MTG. The backyard photographs.

MR. MEE. Right. In this case, if you had slight movement in

the enlarger or during the copying process, you could get the

right amount of difference between the photos so that you would

be able to view them in stereo.

MTG. Okay. One thing that I'd really like to ask you about

has to do with the DeMohrenschildt photograph and the frame edge

markings. Actually, it doesn't just involve the frame edge

markings. It involves matching the DeMohrenschildt photo to the

IR camera's film plane aperture. We talked about this briefly

last time. Now, when Jack White testified before the Committee,

the House Select Committee. . . .

MR. MEE. Uh-huh.

MTG. When he testified before the Committee, he said that. . . .

[side one of the third tape runs out. Tape is flipped over, and

the interview resumes.]

MTG. Okay. Now, this involves the finding of the edge markings

on the edges of the DeMohrenschildt photo and the determination

that the photo is genuine because those markings are unique to

the IR camera. Now, Jack White, when he testified back then,

said. . . . Well, let me read what he said. [Reads from page

205 of HIGH TREASON]

The DeMohrenschildt picture shows a much larger

amount of background around the edges than any of

the photographs, 133-A, B, or C. To me, this

indicates that the DeMohrenschildt picture is

printed full negative. In fact, we can verify

this because it is printed with a black border

around the edge, the black border being the clear

area around the edge of the negative.

According to the FBI, the picture, CE-133-B, was

identified as being taken with Oswald's camera

because it could be matched to the film plane

aperture. Yet, if the DeMohrenschildt picture

shows a larger background area and it is taken

from the same camera viewpoint, then 133-A, B, and

C have been cropped and, therefore, if there is

more background area in the picture, then it [the

DeMohrenschildt photo] could not possibly be

matched to the film plane aperture.

Do you understand his point?

MR. MEE. Yes.

MTG. Can you explain it in layman's terms? Do you think he's

right?

MR. MEE. Well, there are certain things I'd have to know

before I could say whether or not he's right. I'll put it this

way: If the DeMohrenschildt photo has a lot more background than

the B negative, and if both were taken from the same camera

viewpoint, then, yes, that would tend to tell me that Mr. White

is correct. What you'd have to do is make precise measurements

of the DeMohrenschildt picture and the B negative, and then

compare them. You'd also need to know if they were taken from

the same camera viewpoint. You'd want a good, uncropped print of

the B negative. These are the kinds of things I'd need to check

out before I could really say anything about what he [White]

says here.

MTG. In his video, Jack White suggests that the DeMohrenschildt

photo is a composite made up of 133-A and the border of the film

plane aperture of the IR camera.

MR. MEE. Can we see that segment again?

MTG. Yeah.

[Video segment is located on the tape and then replayed.]

MR. MEE. No, that explanation. . . . I see what he's saying,

but if you do that, you're going to have sort of a line of

demarcation all the way around. This would be very easy to

identify. Or, let's put it this way: It would be very difficult

to cover up, extremely difficult to cover up, a line like that.

It would be almost impossible to do that.

MTG. Okay. Now to get back to the other point, about the fact

that it's so much clearer than 133-A and. . . .

MR.. MEE. It's an earlier generation than the ones that have

been cropped..

MTG. Right. Now how would they have gotten the two scratch

marks onto it [the DeMohrenschildt photo]?

MR. MEE. Well, this gets into how these pictures could have

been made. I'll tell you what I think they might have done.

[Mr. Mee starts to draw a diagram, using squares to represent

pictures and/or negatives. As he presents his explanation, he

points back and forth to the different squares. For instance,

when he refers to "this one" or says "here," he points to a

certain square, and then when he says something like "and then

this one over here," he points to a different square, etc.,

etc.]

You see, what I'm thinking is that there was a group of backyard

photographs made long before the DeMohrenschildt photograph, and

that at some point in this earlier group you have composites.

The first pictures, the very first ones, would be taken with a

high-quality camera, a very high-quality camera. So your first

pictures are all very high quality. Okay?

MTG. Uh-huh.

MR. MEE. And then this group here would be taken from those

pictures, again using a high-quality camera. Now the pictures

in this group would be smaller than the first ones.

And then, after that, just for example, way down the road,

133-A, B, and C were taken from these. Okay? And every time

along the way you're losing a generation.

MTG. Uh-huh.

MR. MEE. And, you never can tell, there may have been more then

a couple generations in between these photos.

Now, in the early stages, we're just talking about the

background--one very high-quality picture of the backyard.

So, then, you get down to here where you have your first pictures

that include the figure holding the rifle and the newspapers.

Okay?

MTG. All right.

MR. MEE. Now, there may have been more originals. You don't

know how many could have existed before that.

At this stage here, you introduce one or two heads, and you

retouch those prints. Then, you photograph that print and

you come up with a print and a negative here. And you do that

for each picture. Now, these prints could be retouched, or the

negatives could be retouched. Then, you'd make prints from those

negatives.

Now, you're down to here. This is where we introduce this stage,

here. These photographs can either be the same or a generation

or two down. Okay, then you've got these photos here--they've

had the art work done on them and they've been reworked. Until

now you're using a very high-quality camera. Then, you

photograph one of these photos with the IR camera to make, for

example, the DeMohrenschildt picture, which would give you the

edge markings and the scratches.

MTG. Now, what would happen if you were to analyze, say, the

negative of this photo right here with digital image processing

after all this stuff had been done?

MR. MEE. Well, you've got to remember that you have these other

pictures up here, where the heads are included. The grain

pattern of this photo--the one that you're talking about--is

going to be dependent on the film that has been used. If you

have the negative of the photo of the head, then you know what

kind of film to use.

Let's say you saw that the film used for the head was, oh, 100-

speed Kodak. That was a pretty common film back then, 100-speed.

It might have even been less than that. Now, you would have to

be sure, then, to use 100-speed Kodak to shoot the prints of the

background and of the guy standing with the rifle and the

newspapers. The key would be to keep your film consistent

throughout. That would be very important. Now, if you did this,

it would be extremely difficult, with the technology that they

had during that time, to detect what little differences you

would have with this process. We're talking about the late

seventies?

MTG. 1978 to 1979.

MR. MEE. Right. I don't think they had the technology back then

to be able to discern the small differences you'd have if you

kept your film consistent. Today, possibly, with the

sophistication of the computers and the scanning capabilities

that they're just now coming out with, you might be able to spot

the differences. But in the late seventies, I don't think they

had the capability to detect them. As long as you maintained

the consistency of the film for your photos, they'd all blend

together. It's just like anything else. If your process is

gradual enough, they're going to blend right in. This is how I

think these photographs could have been made.

MTG. Do you think there was only one forger?

MR. MEE. No, I think you would have needed a team, a group of

professionals.

MTG. I'd like to show you a couple doctored prints that were

released by Dallas authorities in 1992.

[MTG shows Mr. Mee the two prints, both of which show a white

human silhouette where Oswald is supposed to be. The whited-out

figure corresponds closely in size and outline to the figure in

the backyard photos.]

MR. MEE. Is that right? Well, somebody was doing something.

Now, this doesn't prove that this is how it was done. But these

prints might represent an early attempt to produce the backyard

photos. You never know.

See, the thing is, though, I don't believe the pictures were

made like this because you would have had too much area to

retouch, even for a good retoucher. Here, in the head area, you

would have only had a very small area to worry about. Mind you,

these prints might have been a part of the process. It could

have been done that way. But that's not how I would have done

it.

They [the forgers] probably looked at several different options

for making these photographs, and they would have been looking

for the best method. So these prints could have been one

of the ways that they considered.

MTG. All right. I'd like to ask you about varying exposure

analysis.

MR. MEE. Well, I understand what they were doing. The theory

is that you're trying to. . . .

MTG. Can I go ahead and read a little bit first?

MR. MEE. Sure.

MTG. Okay, I'm going to read some of what McCamy said about

this.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Please explain the results of this

varying exposure analysis.

Mr. MCCAMY.. Yes. In these illustrations, the

greatest exposure gives the darkest print, and the

least exposure, the lightest print. The advantage

of doing this is that in the lightest areas of the

picture we can see detail here that cannot be seen

up here. Conversely, in the shadows, this is the

best photograph on which to look for the detail.

So that is a print ideally exposed to look into

the shadows. This one is ideally exposed to look

into the highlights, so we can see all the detail

there.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. After applying this method, did

the panel discern anything unusual about these

pictures?

Mr. MCCAMY. No, nothing at all. There had been

allegations that the shadows were painted in, and

a simple examination of the shadows on these

pictures shows that there is plenty of detail

there. You can see grass, little stones. There

is a newspaper lying back here. You can see the

detail on it.

Any comments?

MR. MEE. I don't think it's an issue. I mean, I don't think the

shadows were added. Now, I haven't had time to study these

pictures long enough to give a firm opinion in this area. But,

just from what I can see--again, without looking at the

originals--I don't think the shadows were added.

What he's talking about here is altering the exposure so

you can see detail in the shadows. A black and white print has

different grades from lightness to darkness. The full spectrum

is called a zone system. The full spectrum is from 1 to 10--1

being your whitest white, and 10 being your blackest black. Most

cameras and film can only pick up a zone from about. . . . Well,

let's say this is a sliding scale. Your camera might get a very

white white, but it might not get a really dark dark, and it

doesn't get everything in between. So, by altering the exposure,

you can lighten these dark areas and see detail in them.

Now that doesn't explain the problems of the different shadow

angles and the bulges in the post and the neck.

MTG. Right.

MR. MEE. And I still have some questions about the shadow

of the neck and the head in 133-A. It looks a little odd, but

that might be due to using a different head. But the shadows of

the bushes, the stairway, and all that--I don't see why a

retoucher would have bothered with them. It would have been

taking an unnecessary risk. So, really, I'd tend to agree with

him [McCamy]. From what I can see, I don't think the shadows

were added.

MTG. Okay. . . .

MR. MEE. Now, if he's saying that this analysis explains the

shadow angles and those neck and post bulges, then I would

disagree with him. You're not going to explain away those

problems with that sort of analysis.

MTG. It seems to me that the easiest way to explain the

different body shadows would be to assume that they were

photographed at different times of the day.

MR. MEE. Yeah, I think they were just taken at different times

of the day.

You see, I understand what some of these guys [conspiracists] are

saying. If you had a situation where you took a picture of the

scene, and then took a picture of a person in a studio or

somewhere else and then put the figure in the picture, then you'd

need to add the shadows. But I agree with him [McCamy] here. I

don't think the shadows were added. It would be a lot easier to

just put a head on a body. I mean, you could put anybody in the

picture. You could take the picture with the background and

the body and everything, and then just take the head and put it

on the figure. That would be a lot easier.

MTG. Okay. I know we talked about this quite a bit last time,

but I'd like to ask you again about the reenactment that McCamy

cited to show that the nose shadow could remain the same even

with the head tilted. I've already discussed this reenactment

in detail in the forum [the JFK Assassination Forum on

CompuServe]. I'd just like to get some of your views on it.

MR. MEE. [begins shaking his head from side to side in the

typical "No" motion.] Right. Well. . . . [pauses and

continues to shake his head]

MTG. Well, you know, even Congressman Fithian pointed out that

the chances that all those things would occur at the same

time were very low. [Fithian was referring to the manipulated

and unrealistic head and camera movements that were done in the

reenactment.]

MR. MEE. Yeah. Well, let's put it this way: What they did

wasn't realistic. The bottom line is that the [nose] shadow

should have shifted when the head tilted. I mean, with the head

tilted like that, you wouldn't have a drastic change, but you'd

get enough movement that you could easily spot the difference.

There's just no way that shadow should look like that.

MTG. Okay. Let's see. . . . Let me see if I can find it

here. Okay, here it is. What I have here is a picture. . . .

[side two of the third tape runs out. The portion follows is

reconstructed from notes taken by MTG. MTG showed Mr. Mee the

notes at the conclusion of the interview, and Mr. Mee said

they accurately reflected what he had said.]

MTG. I'd like to show you a picture from Gerald Posner's book

CASE CLOSED. The picture shows the grain structure analysis that

was done on the right side of Oswald's face. Would you take a

look at it and tell me what you think?

[MTG shows Mr. Mee the bottom photo on the sixth page of pictures

in Posner's book. Mr. Mee studies it for about a minute.]

MR. MEE. I can see some variation in the grain pattern.

However, I wouldn't form an opinion just from looking at a copy

of a picture of this nature in a book. I would need to study the

originals with a high-powered microscope so that I could see the

grain structure. But, if the forger matched the film, and given

the fact that for the most part there was one standard way

of making film in the 60s, I wouldn't expect to see a big

difference in the grain anyway. If the film was in fact

matched, it would be difficult to reach a definite conclusion

about the grain in terms of the authenticity of the backyard

photos.

MTG. When McCamy recognized that Mr. Scott's photograph was

a fake, he did so because the shadows on the suit didn't match

the shadows on the railing. McCamy explained:

He [Mr. Scott, a fellow panel member] spent 40

hours with an assistant preparing a fake

photograph of a man standing in a backyard. When

he presented the photograph, he mailed it to me, I

pulled it out of the envelope, and as I pulled it

out of the envelope I said it is a fake.

I was rather surprised that it was that easy. As

it turned out, what he had done was to make a

photograph, a 6-foot photograph of a 6-foot man,

and this was placed in the backyard, and it was

photographed.

But there was a thing that caught my eye

instantly; that is, that there were shadows that

were cast by parts of a dark suit. There were

shadows cast by parts of a railing immediately

behind the man.

When the suit was in full sunlight, it exactly

matched the railing. But the shadows on the suit

didn't match the shadows on the railing.

Now, that would not be the way it would have been

if it had been a true photograph.

When I read this, I thought it was strange that this was the same

man who had just gone to such great lengths to dismiss the

implications of the variant shadows in the backyard photos. Yet,

he admitted that he concluded that Mr. Scott's picture was a fake

because some of the shadows didn't match. What is your opinion

on this matter?

MR. MEE. McCamy was saying the same thing about Scott's photo

that others have said about the backyard pictures. He was not

consistent.

Inconsistent shadows in a photo are a clear indication of fakery.

McCamy was absolutely correct in immediately branding Mr. Scott's

picture a fake based on the conflicting shadows, because we

only have one sun. The shadow conflicts in the backyard

photographs are at least, if not more, serious and telling. The

head and the body were not photographed in the same sunlight.

They were taken at two different times of the day.

MTG. What do you think of the argument that a good forger would

have done his pasting in a different part of the body, such as

in the stomach or in the chest?

MR. MEE. For one thing, in order to attach an upper body onto

someone else's lower body in the stomach or chest area, you would

have to match the shirt widths exactly. You would need to

maintain consistency in any wrinkles or folds that came up to the

joining point. You would have to ensure that the two persons'

builds and figures were compatible. Also, the larger the object

that your attaching, the harder it will be to hide the pasting.

There is also the matter of the figure's pose. In order to

attach Oswald's upper body onto a lower body, the forgers would

have needed a picture of Oswald with his arms and hands in the

necessary positions. They would have needed photos of him

with his hands held in such a way that the rifle and the

newspapers could have been inserted into them.

Doing the pasting at the abdomen or lower would also present

problems. The builds and figures would again have to be

compatible. And you would be increasing the size of the

object to be attached, thus making it even harder to hide

the pasting.

The chin area would be a logical place to do the joining, for

a number of reasons. Most people have a natural cleft or

indentation of some form in the chin, beneath the lower lip, and

I notice that the line across Oswald's chin runs through this

area. In joining only about 4/5 of a head onto a chin, the

object to be attached would be small, much smaller than part or

all of a man's upper body.

The neck would be another place where the pasting could be done.

The object to be attached would still be relatively small, at

least when compared to an upper body. But, you would need to

have necks that were identical in size and shape.

MTG. Finally, what would you say in summary about the backyard

photographs?

MR. MEE. I am convinced they are fake. They show impossible

shadows. The shadow conflicts are serious and telling. There is

no way the backyard photos could have identical, or even nearly

identical, backgrounds if they were taken in the manner described

by Marina Oswald. The figure's chin is not Oswald's chin. This

is readily apparent. Even if we were to accept the claim that

the line across the chin was caused by a water spot, that would

not change the fact that the chin itself is noticeably different

from Oswald's chin. The neck bulge and the post indentation are

further indications of tampering.

MTG. I would like to thank you for coming here tonight and for

taking so much of your time to answer my questions.

MR. MEE. You're quite welcome, and it was my....pleasure..

B...

Edited November 13, 2009 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

Can anyone identify the person in this photo and determine what he is doing?

How many photos are there?

The DPD originally found some photos and one negative.

How many photos and negatives are there?

Michael Paine now says he saw one of these photos the very moment he met Oswald.

Oswald's mom admitted she destroyed a copy after the assassination.

DeMohrenschildt found one years later.

A newspaper got a hold of one picture early on, and Life published another.

One publication altered the photo, eliminating the scope for some reason.

And the DPD tried to restage the photo and created more mystery.

Now this Liebler photo surfaces.

Who is that guy?

And the Dartmouth Prof. says the photo is real.

Which photo did he study?

Did he ever apply his techniques to a photo that was known to have been altered to see if it works?

BK

I have been asked by William Kelly to post this photograph. It was found in a discarded suitcase owned by the late Wesley Liebler, Attorney on the Warren Commission.

I FOUND THIS AND THE MANY THERe ALSO BILL WITHIN THE UNIV..POSTINGS OF THE DPD ARCHIVES.....I HAVEN'T A CLUE WHOM HE MAY BE..I HAVE BEEN CHECKING THE DPD PHOTOS..IT WAS JUST A THOUGHT..BUT NOTHING SO FAR.....HERE ARE SOME COPIES NOIICE WHAT SOME CALL THE DOG NOSE SEEN THROUGH THE FENCE THAT SOMEONE LEFT IN...I DO NOT KNOW NOW WHO MADE THE GIF BUT TO WHOMEVER MANY THANKS...B...IAN GRIGGS DID A VERY GOOD ARTICLE THAT EXPLAINS EACH AND EVERY FYI... http://www.jfklancer.com/byphotos.html )

Edited November 13, 2009 by Bernice Moore

[Craig Lamson]

Poor Mr. Mee, he is as clueless as Jack White about such simple things as the properties of light and shadow and the very basics of camera position and height.

I do so love it when the brainwashed and faithful post such drool in a failed attempt to bolster the dear leader....

[Craig Lamson]

Can anyone identify the person in this photo and determine what he is doing?

How many photos are there?

The DPD originally found some photos and one negative.

How many photos and negatives are there?

Michael Paine now says he saw one of these photos the very moment he met Oswald.

Oswald's mom admitted she destroyed a copy after the assassination.

DeMohrenschildt found one years later.

A newspaper got a hold of one picture early on, and Life published another.

One publication altered the photo, eliminating the scope for some reason.

And the DPD tried to restage the photo and created more mystery.

Now this Liebler photo surfaces.

Who is that guy?

And the Dartmouth Prof. says the photo is real.

Which photo did he study?

Did he ever apply his techniques to a photo that was known to have been altered to see if it works?

BK

I have been asked by William Kelly to post this photograph. It was found in a discarded suitcase owned by the late Wesley Liebler, Attorney on the Warren Commission.

I FOUND THIS AND THE MANY THERe ALSO BILL WITHIN THE UNIV..POSTINGS OF THE DPD ARCHIVES.....I HAVEN'T A CLUE WHOM HE MAY BE..I HAVE BEEN CHECKING THE DPD PHOTOS..IT WAS JUST A THOUGHT..BUT NOTHING SO FAR.....HERE ARE SOME COPIES NOIICE WHAT SOME CALL THE DOG NOSE SEEN THROUGH THE FENCE THAT SOMEONE LEFT IN...I DO NOT KNOW NOW WHO MADE THE GIF BUT TO WHOMEVER MANY THANKS...B...IAN GRIGGS DID A VERY GOOD ARTICLE THAT EXPLAINS EACH AND EVERY FYI... http://www.jfklancer.com/byphotos.html )

Thanks so much for posting that wonderful gif. It serves as yet another wonderful example of the total incompetence of the poster, the maker of the gif and of course Jack White who uses this technique so often.

The unimpeachable truth is that you can't take two photos taken from different camera to subject distances, resize them to match and then compare sizes.

Any claims made based on such flawed technique are swiftly discarded to the trash bin of stupidity.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[David Andrews]

Is there a single known image of LHO in a similar stance in another location and time? We're limited creatures with a small repertoire of poses.

Even the photo of him as a cocky kid at the zoo doesn't work for me in context with the backyard photos.

Today, posture, stance, and gait are all analytic indices to identifying photographed criminals.

Edited November 13, 2009 by David Andrews

[Kathleen Collins]

This new DISINFORMATION is a DIRECT response to the new book on Wilson's work....and I have word more will be forthcoming in the next few weeks. Jack White, and others, long ago proved the photos fakes....and the constant finding over time of new versions [as well as how and where the 'first' and 'only' originals were found] strengthens that. More versions 'out there'. Can't say more. Only the blind or cognitively impaired believe those photos were taken by Marina, and not composite fakes. 

Peter,

I swear you are going to worry yourself into a tizzy. It seems Mr. Farid has done alot over the last few years with respect to this type of project. He may have had an interest in LHO's picture, and thought he'd try it and see what happened. I don't think there is anything dark and sinister going on.

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~farid/publications/

Kathy

Sorry, Kathy, but there is something dark and sinister going on. Remember they killed our President. Those backyard photos are not of Harvey Oswald (John Armstrong theory), the man who was killed by Jack Ruby -- in my opinion.

Kathy C

[Craig Lamson]

Fair enough Kathy, but I think that anyone who questions main line conspiracy views is automatically labeled,by some, a disinfo agent, and frankly, IMO, that mind set is beginning to look a little pathological.

This professor has a background in this. He didn't all of a sudden come up with checking the Oswald photo.

I'm sure if folks have questions for him, he would be happy to answer them. I think both Bernice and Bill came up with good ones--Bernice, wondering if he had only looked at one, and Bill asking if he had tried looking at an altered photo.

My point was, we sit here, and condemn the guy because of his finding, instead of asking him pertinent questions. I have no photo expertise, and would be not the one to do that, but there are people here who could.

Has anyone done this?

Kathy

Actually I gave Martin a couple of links for the guy, and there is more if you google his name. And yes I emailed him and showed him Fetzers post and invited him to the forum. He did reply and declined. As for other questions, I'll let those that have them, ask.

[Bernice Moore]

Can anyone identify the person in this photo and determine what he is doing?

How many photos are there?

The DPD originally found some photos and one negative.

How many photos and negatives are there?

Michael Paine now says he saw one of these photos the very moment he met Oswald.

Oswald's mom admitted she destroyed a copy after the assassination.

DeMohrenschildt found one years later.

A newspaper got a hold of one picture early on, and Life published another.

One publication altered the photo, eliminating the scope for some reason.

And the DPD tried to restage the photo and created more mystery.

Now this Liebler photo surfaces.

Who is that guy?

And the Dartmouth Prof. says the photo is real.

Which photo did he study?

Did he ever apply his techniques to a photo that was known to have been altered to see if it works?

BK

I have been asked by William Kelly to post this photograph. It was found in a discarded suitcase owned by the late Wesley Liebler, Attorney on the Warren Commission.

I FOUND THIS AND THE MANY THERe ALSO BILL WITHIN THE UNIV..POSTINGS OF THE DPD ARCHIVES.....I HAVEN'T A CLUE WHOM HE MAY BE..I HAVE BEEN CHECKING THE DPD PHOTOS..IT WAS JUST A THOUGHT..BUT NOTHING SO FAR.....HERE ARE SOME COPIES NOIICE WHAT SOME CALL THE DOG NOSE SEEN THROUGH THE FENCE THAT SOMEONE LEFT IN...I DO NOT KNOW NOW WHO MADE THE GIF BUT TO WHOMEVER MANY THANKS...B...IAN GRIGGS DID A VERY GOOD ARTICLE THAT EXPLAINS EACH AND EVERY FYI... http://www.jfklancer.com/byphotos.html )

Thanks so much for posting that wonderful gif. It serves as yet another wonderful example of the total incompetence of the poster, the maker of the gif and of course Jack White who uses this technique so often.

The unimpeachable truth is that you can't take two photos taken from different camera to subject distances, resize them to match and then compare sizes.

Any claims made based on such flawed technique are swiftly discarded to the trash bin of stupidity.

YOUR WELCOME CRAIG ALWAYS....I AND OTHERS ARE LOOKING FOWARD TO YOUR RESEACHED STUDIES POSTED HERE ON THE FORUM ON THE BACK YARD PHOTOS.....THANKS....B..

KATHY'S THANKS FOR THE REPLIES...TAKE CARE ALL.......B

Edited November 14, 2009 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

Is there a single known image of LHO in a similar stance in another location and time? We're limited creatures with a small repertoire of poses.

Even the photo of him as a cocky kid at the zoo doesn't work for me in context with the backyard photos.

Today, posture, stance, and gait are all analytic indices to identifying photographed criminals.

DAVID HERE ARE SOME OTHERS FOR YOU MAINLY TAKEN IN RUSSIA.FOR YOUR COMPARISONS...B...FWTW

Edited November 14, 2009 by Bernice Moore

[Craig Lamson]

Can anyone identify the person in this photo and determine what he is doing?

How many photos are there?

The DPD originally found some photos and one negative.

How many photos and negatives are there?

Michael Paine now says he saw one of these photos the very moment he met Oswald.

Oswald's mom admitted she destroyed a copy after the assassination.

DeMohrenschildt found one years later.

A newspaper got a hold of one picture early on, and Life published another.

One publication altered the photo, eliminating the scope for some reason.

And the DPD tried to restage the photo and created more mystery.

Now this Liebler photo surfaces.

Who is that guy?

And the Dartmouth Prof. says the photo is real.

Which photo did he study?

Did he ever apply his techniques to a photo that was known to have been altered to see if it works?

BK

I have been asked by William Kelly to post this photograph. It was found in a discarded suitcase owned by the late Wesley Liebler, Attorney on the Warren Commission.

I FOUND THIS AND THE MANY THERe ALSO BILL WITHIN THE UNIV..POSTINGS OF THE DPD ARCHIVES.....I HAVEN'T A CLUE WHOM HE MAY BE..I HAVE BEEN CHECKING THE DPD PHOTOS..IT WAS JUST A THOUGHT..BUT NOTHING SO FAR.....HERE ARE SOME COPIES NOIICE WHAT SOME CALL THE DOG NOSE SEEN THROUGH THE FENCE THAT SOMEONE LEFT IN...I DO NOT KNOW NOW WHO MADE THE GIF BUT TO WHOMEVER MANY THANKS...B...IAN GRIGGS DID A VERY GOOD ARTICLE THAT EXPLAINS EACH AND EVERY FYI... http://www.jfklancer.com/byphotos.html )

Thanks so much for posting that wonderful gif. It serves as yet another wonderful example of the total incompetence of the poster, the maker of the gif and of course Jack White who uses this technique so often.

The unimpeachable truth is that you can't take two photos taken from different camera to subject distances, resize them to match and then compare sizes.

Any claims made based on such flawed technique are swiftly discarded to the trash bin of stupidity.

YOUR WELCOME CRAIG ALWAYS....I AND OTHERS ARE LOOKING FOWARD TO YOUR RESEACHED STUDIES POSTED HERE ON THE FORUM ON THE BACK YARD PHOTOS.....THANKS....B..

KATHY'S THANKS FOR THE REPLIES...TAKE CARE ALL.......B

Ask away bernie, I'm be more than happy to school you. But somehow I don't think you could understand photographic truth if it hit you on the asp.

We have to remember, bernie BELIEVES, lordy lordy bernie BELIEVES!

In any case lets deal with the ignorance you have displayed in this thread by dealing with the resizing bullcrap you posted ( as "researched by Jack the Hack...the faulty resizing that is...he is clueless that he is wrong.)

Here ya go, read it and weep. BTW, don't take my word for it, do the work yourself to verify. When shall we expect your admission that you are wrong (and White as well) bernie?

This is photography 101, which is why WHITE got it wrong....

it's upthread...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry174149

[Bernice Moore]

Can anyone identify the person in this photo and determine what he is doing?

How many photos are there?

The DPD originally found some photos and one negative.

How many photos and negatives are there?

Michael Paine now says he saw one of these photos the very moment he met Oswald.

Oswald's mom admitted she destroyed a copy after the assassination.

DeMohrenschildt found one years later.

A newspaper got a hold of one picture early on, and Life published another.

One publication altered the photo, eliminating the scope for some reason.

And the DPD tried to restage the photo and created more mystery.

Now this Liebler photo surfaces.

Who is that guy?

And the Dartmouth Prof. says the photo is real.

Which photo did he study?

Did he ever apply his techniques to a photo that was known to have been altered to see if it works?

BK

I have been asked by William Kelly to post this photograph. It was found in a discarded suitcase owned by the late Wesley Liebler, Attorney on the Warren Commission.

I FOUND THIS AND THE MANY THERe ALSO BILL WITHIN THE UNIV..POSTINGS OF THE DPD ARCHIVES.....I HAVEN'T A CLUE WHOM HE MAY BE..I HAVE BEEN CHECKING THE DPD PHOTOS..IT WAS JUST A THOUGHT..BUT NOTHING SO FAR.....HERE ARE SOME COPIES NOIICE WHAT SOME CALL THE DOG NOSE SEEN THROUGH THE FENCE THAT SOMEONE LEFT IN...I DO NOT KNOW NOW WHO MADE THE GIF BUT TO WHOMEVER MANY THANKS...B...IAN GRIGGS DID A VERY GOOD ARTICLE THAT EXPLAINS EACH AND EVERY FYI... http://www.jfklancer.com/byphotos.html )

Thanks so much for posting that wonderful gif. It serves as yet another wonderful example of the total incompetence of the poster, the maker of the gif and of course Jack White who uses this technique so often.

The unimpeachable truth is that you can't take two photos taken from different camera to subject distances, resize them to match and then compare sizes.

Any claims made based on such flawed technique are swiftly discarded to the trash bin of stupidity.

YOUR WELCOME CRAIG ALWAYS....I AND OTHERS ARE LOOKING FOWARD TO YOUR RESEACHED STUDIES POSTED HERE ON THE FORUM ON THE BACK YARD PHOTOS.....THANKS....B..

KATHY'S THANKS FOR THE REPLIES...TAKE CARE ALL.......B

Ask away bernie, I'm be more than happy to school you. But somehow I don't think you could understand photographic truth if it hit you on the asp.

We have to remember, bernie BELIEVES, lordy lordy bernie BELIEVES!

In any case lets deal with the ignorance you have displayed in this thread by dealing with the resizing bullcrap you posted ( as "researched by Jack the Hack...the faulty resizing that is...he is clueless that he is wrong.)

Here ya go, read it and weep. BTW, don't take my word for it, do the work yourself to verify. When shall we expect your admission that you are wrong (and White as well) bernie?

This is photography 101, which is why WHITE got it wrong....

it's upthread...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry174149

THANKS FOR POSTING THE LINK CRAIGIE...AS I HAD LOOKED FOR YOUR BACKYARD PHOTO STUDIES BUT COULD NOT FIND THEM...AND STILL DID NOT THAT I FOUND WITHIN THE LINK..THOUGH I SHALL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK...BUT I DID SEE YOUR VERY GOOD PHOTO OF A NICE LOOKING KETTLE..THOUGH THERE WEREN'T ANY IN THE BACKYARD THAT DAY THAT WAS RAINY AND CLOUDY,,,AND MARGUERITE IS ALWAYS SUCH A GOOD READ..THOUGH IT REMINDED ME OF THE PHOTO ANOTHER BACKYARD THAT MARINA HAD IN HER SHOE AT THE PD STATION THAT SHE WASN'T QUITE SURE OF WHAT SHE DID WITH .THOUGH SHE THOUGHT SHE MAY HAVE GOTTEN RID OF IT......AND THOUGH SHE THOUGHT SHE MAY HAVE TAKEN THE PHOTOS FROM THE STAIRS....SHE SEEMED NOT TOO SURE ABOUT THAT EITHER THAT HARRY LIVINGSTONE HAS ON A TAPE RECORDED...SEEMS THE STORIES CHANGED SO MUCH DOWN THROUGH TIME....BUT THAT IS ALLRIGHT THEY ARE ALSO ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINIONS AS WE ALL ARE.....I DO NOT SUPPORT THE W/C NOR ANY GOV STUDIES AFTER ALL THE ERRORS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE WITHIN...YES I DO BELIEVE THEY NOT ONLY ALTERED EVIDENCE AND ALSO DESTROYED LOST AND SO ON.SUCH AS SOME OF THE LHO COLLECTED....EVIDENCE THAT WAS NOT ALL RETURNED TO THE DPD AFTER BEING TAKEN BY THE FBI.FROM DALLAS TO WASHINGTON.FUNNY THAT THEY NEVER RECEIVED ALL BACK....BUT I'LL GIVE MARINA CREDIT SHE DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT HER HUSBAND LHO KILLED ANYONE THAT DAY AND IS AN INNOCENT MAN...BUT SHE ALSO IS ENTITLED TO HER BELIEFS AS YOU ARE AS WELL...THANKS FOR THE COME BACK I AM OFF BACK TO THAT THREAD TO FIND YOUR BACKYARD PHOTOS AND STUDIES...TAKE CARE B..

Edited November 14, 2009 by Bernice Moore

[Craig Lamson]

Can anyone identify the person in this photo and determine what he is doing?

How many photos are there?

The DPD originally found some photos and one negative.

How many photos and negatives are there?

Michael Paine now says he saw one of these photos the very moment he met Oswald.

Oswald's mom admitted she destroyed a copy after the assassination.

DeMohrenschildt found one years later.

A newspaper got a hold of one picture early on, and Life published another.

One publication altered the photo, eliminating the scope for some reason.

And the DPD tried to restage the photo and created more mystery.

Now this Liebler photo surfaces.

Who is that guy?

And the Dartmouth Prof. says the photo is real.

Which photo did he study?

Did he ever apply his techniques to a photo that was known to have been altered to see if it works?

BK

I have been asked by William Kelly to post this photograph. It was found in a discarded suitcase owned by the late Wesley Liebler, Attorney on the Warren Commission.

I FOUND THIS AND THE MANY THERe ALSO BILL WITHIN THE UNIV..POSTINGS OF THE DPD ARCHIVES.....I HAVEN'T A CLUE WHOM HE MAY BE..I HAVE BEEN CHECKING THE DPD PHOTOS..IT WAS JUST A THOUGHT..BUT NOTHING SO FAR.....HERE ARE SOME COPIES NOIICE WHAT SOME CALL THE DOG NOSE SEEN THROUGH THE FENCE THAT SOMEONE LEFT IN...I DO NOT KNOW NOW WHO MADE THE GIF BUT TO WHOMEVER MANY THANKS...B...IAN GRIGGS DID A VERY GOOD ARTICLE THAT EXPLAINS EACH AND EVERY FYI... http://www.jfklancer.com/byphotos.html )

Thanks so much for posting that wonderful gif. It serves as yet another wonderful example of the total incompetence of the poster, the maker of the gif and of course Jack White who uses this technique so often.

The unimpeachable truth is that you can't take two photos taken from different camera to subject distances, resize them to match and then compare sizes.

Any claims made based on such flawed technique are swiftly discarded to the trash bin of stupidity.

YOUR WELCOME CRAIG ALWAYS....I AND OTHERS ARE LOOKING FOWARD TO YOUR RESEACHED STUDIES POSTED HERE ON THE FORUM ON THE BACK YARD PHOTOS.....THANKS....B..

KATHY'S THANKS FOR THE REPLIES...TAKE CARE ALL.......B

Ask away bernie, I'm be more than happy to school you. But somehow I don't think you could understand photographic truth if it hit you on the asp.

We have to remember, bernie BELIEVES, lordy lordy bernie BELIEVES!

In any case lets deal with the ignorance you have displayed in this thread by dealing with the resizing bullcrap you posted ( as "researched by Jack the Hack...the faulty resizing that is...he is clueless that he is wrong.)

Here ya go, read it and weep. BTW, don't take my word for it, do the work yourself to verify. When shall we expect your admission that you are wrong (and White as well) bernie?

This is photography 101, which is why WHITE got it wrong....

it's upthread...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry174149

THANKS FOR POSTING THE LINK CRAIGIE...AS I HAD LOOKED FOR YOUR BACKYARD PHOTO STUDIES BUT COULD NOT FIND THEM...AND STILL DID NOT THAT I FOUND WITHIN THE LINK..THOUGH I SHALL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK...BUT I DID SEE YOUR VERY GOOD PHOTO OF A NICE LOOKING KETTLE..THOUGH THERE WEREN'T ANY IN THE BACKYARD THAT DAY THAT WAS RAINY AND CLOUDY,,,AND MARGUERITE IS ALWAYS SUCH A GOOD READ..THOUGH IT REMINDED ME OF THE PHOTO ANOTHER BACKYARD THAT MARINA HAD IN HER SHOE AT THE PD STATION THAT SHE WASN'T QUITE SURE OF WHAT SHE DID WITH .THOUGH SHE THOUGHT SHE MAY HAVE GOTTEN RID OF IT......AND THOUGH SHE THOUGHT SHE MAY HAVE TAKEN THE PHOTOS FROM THE STAIRS....SHE SEEMED NOT TOO SURE ABOUT THAT EITHER THAT HARRY LIVINGSTONE HAS ON A TAPE RECORDED...SEEMS THE STORIES CHANGED SO MUCH DOWN THROUGH TIME....BUT THAT IS ALLRIGHT THEY ARE ALSO ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINIONS AS WE ALL ARE.....I DO NOT SUPPORT THE W/C NOR ANY GOV STUDIES AFTER ALL THE ERRORS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE WITHIN...YES I DO BELIEVE THEY NOT ONLY ALTERED EVIDENCE AND ALSO DESTROYED LOST AND SO ON.SUCH AS SOME OF THE LHO COLLECTED....EVIDENCE THAT WAS NOT ALL RETURNED TO THE DPD AFTER BEING TAKEN BY THE FBI.FROM DALLAS TO WASHINGTON.FUNNY THAT THEY NEVER RECEIVED ALL BACK....BUT I'LL GIVE MARINA CREDIT SHE DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT HER HUSBAND LHO KILLED ANYONE THAT DAY AND IS AN INNOCENT MAN...BUT SHE ALSO IS ENTITLED TO HER BELIEFS AS YOU ARE AS WELL...THANKS FOR THE COME BACK I AM OFF BACK TO THAT THREAD TO FIND YOUR BACKYARD PHOTOS AND STUDIES...TAKE CARE B..

What the matter bernie, you so pissed at being wrong you had to shout your entire rant? LOL!

Since there is nothing wrong with the backyard photos, no "studies" needed. Al thet is requireed is the simple applicatiopnof the basic photographic principles to toss all the "studies" byt hre bleivers into the trash bin of stupidity. You should understand that bernie, thats where your stuff ended up.

But thankss again for showing everyone your decided lack of intellectual honesty. I really knew I could count on you not to admit your error!

Hey did you hear the one about the pointed chin not being pointed because it was photographed from below, because the Imperial Reflex camera had a waist level finder? Oh of course not, your "dear leader" Jack the Hack could not figure that one out either....and since you need him to think for you in matters photographic, you too are clueless.

Heck if all else fails perhaps you can do one of your famous cut and pastes of something else you don't understand.

[Bernice Moore]

Can anyone identify the person in this photo and determine what he is doing?

How many photos are there?

The DPD originally found some photos and one negative.

How many photos and negatives are there?

Michael Paine now says he saw one of these photos the very moment he met Oswald.

Oswald's mom admitted she destroyed a copy after the assassination.

DeMohrenschildt found one years later.

A newspaper got a hold of one picture early on, and Life published another.

One publication altered the photo, eliminating the scope for some reason.

And the DPD tried to restage the photo and created more mystery.

Now this Liebler photo surfaces.

Who is that guy?

And the Dartmouth Prof. says the photo is real.

Which photo did he study?

Did he ever apply his techniques to a photo that was known to have been altered to see if it works?

BK

I have been asked by William Kelly to post this photograph. It was found in a discarded suitcase owned by the late Wesley Liebler, Attorney on the Warren Commission.

I FOUND THIS AND THE MANY THERe ALSO BILL WITHIN THE UNIV..POSTINGS OF THE DPD ARCHIVES.....I HAVEN'T A CLUE WHOM HE MAY BE..I HAVE BEEN CHECKING THE DPD PHOTOS..IT WAS JUST A THOUGHT..BUT NOTHING SO FAR.....HERE ARE SOME COPIES NOIICE WHAT SOME CALL THE DOG NOSE SEEN THROUGH THE FENCE THAT SOMEONE LEFT IN...I DO NOT KNOW NOW WHO MADE THE GIF BUT TO WHOMEVER MANY THANKS...B...IAN GRIGGS DID A VERY GOOD ARTICLE THAT EXPLAINS EACH AND EVERY FYI... http://www.jfklancer.com/byphotos.html )

Thanks so much for posting that wonderful gif. It serves as yet another wonderful example of the total incompetence of the poster, the maker of the gif and of course Jack White who uses this technique so often.

The unimpeachable truth is that you can't take two photos taken from different camera to subject distances, resize them to match and then compare sizes.

Any claims made based on such flawed technique are swiftly discarded to the trash bin of stupidity.

YOUR WELCOME CRAIG ALWAYS....I AND OTHERS ARE LOOKING FOWARD TO YOUR RESEACHED STUDIES POSTED HERE ON THE FORUM ON THE BACK YARD PHOTOS.....THANKS....B..

KATHY'S THANKS FOR THE REPLIES...TAKE CARE ALL.......B

Ask away bernie, I'm be more than happy to school you. But somehow I don't think you could understand photographic truth if it hit you on the asp.

We have to remember, bernie BELIEVES, lordy lordy bernie BELIEVES!

In any case lets deal with the ignorance you have displayed in this thread by dealing with the resizing bullcrap you posted ( as "researched by Jack the Hack...the faulty resizing that is...he is clueless that he is wrong.)

Here ya go, read it and weep. BTW, don't take my word for it, do the work yourself to verify. When shall we expect your admission that you are wrong (and White as well) bernie?

This is photography 101, which is why WHITE got it wrong....

it's upthread...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry174149

THANKS FOR POSTING THE LINK CRAIGIE...AS I HAD LOOKED FOR YOUR BACKYARD PHOTO STUDIES BUT COULD NOT FIND THEM...AND STILL DID NOT THAT I FOUND WITHIN THE LINK..THOUGH I SHALL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK...BUT I DID SEE YOUR VERY GOOD PHOTO OF A NICE LOOKING KETTLE..THOUGH THERE WEREN'T ANY IN THE BACKYARD THAT DAY THAT WAS RAINY AND CLOUDY,,,AND MARGUERITE IS ALWAYS SUCH A GOOD READ..THOUGH IT REMINDED ME OF THE PHOTO ANOTHER BACKYARD THAT MARINA HAD IN HER SHOE AT THE PD STATION THAT SHE WASN'T QUITE SURE OF WHAT SHE DID WITH .THOUGH SHE THOUGHT SHE MAY HAVE GOTTEN RID OF IT......AND THOUGH SHE THOUGHT SHE MAY HAVE TAKEN THE PHOTOS FROM THE STAIRS....SHE SEEMED NOT TOO SURE ABOUT THAT EITHER THAT HARRY LIVINGSTONE HAS ON A TAPE RECORDED...SEEMS THE STORIES CHANGED SO MUCH DOWN THROUGH TIME....BUT THAT IS ALLRIGHT THEY ARE ALSO ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINIONS AS WE ALL ARE.....I DO NOT SUPPORT THE W/C NOR ANY GOV STUDIES AFTER ALL THE ERRORS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE WITHIN...YES I DO BELIEVE THEY NOT ONLY ALTERED EVIDENCE AND ALSO DESTROYED LOST AND SO ON.SUCH AS SOME OF THE LHO COLLECTED....EVIDENCE THAT WAS NOT ALL RETURNED TO THE DPD AFTER BEING TAKEN BY THE FBI.FROM DALLAS TO WASHINGTON.FUNNY THAT THEY NEVER RECEIVED ALL BACK....BUT I'LL GIVE MARINA CREDIT SHE DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT HER HUSBAND LHO KILLED ANYONE THAT DAY AND IS AN INNOCENT MAN...BUT SHE ALSO IS ENTITLED TO HER BELIEFS AS YOU ARE AS WELL...THANKS FOR THE COME BACK I AM OFF BACK TO THAT THREAD TO FIND YOUR BACKYARD PHOTOS AND STUDIES...TAKE CARE B..

What the matter bernie, you so pissed at being wrong you had to shout your entire rant? LOL!

Since there is nothing wrong with the backyard photos, no "studies" needed. Al thet is requireed is the simple applicatiopnof the basic photographic principles to toss all the "studies" byt hre bleivers into the trash bin of stupidity. You should understand that bernie, thats where your stuff ended up.

But thankss again for showing everyone your decided lack of intellectual honesty. I really knew I could count on you not to admit your error!

Hey did you hear the one about the pointed chin not being pointed because it was photographed from below, because the Imperial Reflex camera had a waist level finder? Oh of course not, your "dear leader" Jack the Hack could not figure that one out either....and since you need him to think for you in matters photographic, you too are clueless.

Heck if all else fails perhaps you can do one of your famous cut and pastes of something else you don't understand.

DEAR CRAIGIE...IF YOU WERE UP ON ALL AS YOU PRETEND TO BE ON THIS FOURM THEN YOU WOULD HAVE READ A POST IN THE UMBRELLAMAN THREAD WHERE I EXPLAINED OR TRIED TO THAT I HAVE OSTEO OF THE NECK BACK SHOULDERS AND ARMS AND HANDS AND IT IS MUCH EASIER FOR ME TO TYPE THIS WAY,..I WISH I COULD TYPE AS I DID BUT NOW CANNOT...SO PLEASE BEAR WITH ME....I MAKE NO BIG DEAL OUT OF IT SO ENOUGH SAID....THOUGH I DO WISH OTHERS WOULD NOT ...WHEN SOME MUST USE CAPITALS AS THERE ARE OTHERS REASONS THAT SOME MAY DO SO...OTHER THAN AS YOU THINK TO RANT......YOU MUST HAVE MISSED THAT AND THAT IS UNDRSTANDABLE... .....SO NO I WAS NOT NOR am i ranting at you.that you will not provoke IN ME....imo you aren't as good as you think YOU ARE...I DID EVERY PAGE WITHIN THE LINK THAT YOU PROVIDED AGAIN..AS I HAD WHEN IT TOOK PLACE....I DID NOT FIND YOUR STUDIES REGARDING SHOWING THE BACKYARD PHOTOS.AS BEING REAL......IF I DID MISS THEM PLEASE PROVIDE THE LINK NOT TO SIMPLY COMMENTS WITHIN THE THREAD.I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOUR RESEARCH STUDIES..WITH PHOTOS THANKS.....I DID READ SO MANY TIMES IN THOSE THREADS THE ONGOING OPINION BY BOTH SIDES...THAT IT IS ALL THERE AND OUT THERE FOR PEOPLE TO STUDY AND COME TO THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS.I DID AND HAVE DONE SO....I WOULD SUGGEST IF...YOU AND OTHERS READ THE POSTS ON PAGE 2 NUMBERS 22 AND 23http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry174149

.IN PARTICULAR...FOR IMO SOME COMMON SENSE....YOU APPARENTLY BELIEVE THE PHOTOS ARE REAL I DO NOT..THOUGH YOU DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE ASSASSINATION..AS YOU HAVE IMPLIED YOU ONLY ARE INTERESTED IN THE PHOTO STUDIES.WHICH IS FINE BUT.TO EACH THEIR OWN NEVER FORGET..AS I THINK YOU ARE DOING IMO.....TO ME THERE WAS A COVER-UP AND A PATSY MADE....BY MANIPULATING WHATEVER NEEDED TO BE ....AND THAT IS THAT.BUT CRAIGIE...DO TAKE CARE OUT THERE.....B...

Edited November 14, 2009 by Bernice Moore

[William Kelly]

Can anyone identify the person in this photo and determine what he is doing?

How many photos are there?

The DPD originally found some photos and one negative.

How many photos and negatives are there?

Michael Paine now says he saw one of these photos the very moment he met Oswald.

Oswald's mom admitted she destroyed a copy after the assassination.

DeMohrenschildt found one years later.

A newspaper got a hold of one picture early on, and Life published another.

One publication altered the photo, eliminating the scope for some reason.

And the DPD tried to restage the photo and created more mystery.

Now this Liebler photo surfaces.

Who is that guy?

And the Dartmouth Prof. says the photo is real.

Which photo did he study?

Did he ever apply his techniques to a photo that was known to have been altered to see if it works?

BK

I have been asked by William Kelly to post this photograph. It was found in a discarded suitcase owned by the late Wesley Liebler, Attorney on the Warren Commission.

I FOUND THIS AND THE MANY THERe ALSO BILL WITHIN THE UNIV..POSTINGS OF THE DPD ARCHIVES.....I HAVEN'T A CLUE WHOM HE MAY BE..I HAVE BEEN CHECKING THE DPD PHOTOS..IT WAS JUST A THOUGHT..BUT NOTHING SO FAR.....HERE ARE SOME COPIES NOIICE WHAT SOME CALL THE DOG NOSE SEEN THROUGH THE FENCE THAT SOMEONE LEFT IN...I DO NOT KNOW NOW WHO MADE THE GIF BUT TO WHOMEVER MANY THANKS...B...IAN GRIGGS DID A VERY GOOD ARTICLE THAT EXPLAINS EACH AND EVERY FYI... http://www.jfklancer.com/byphotos.html )

Thanks Bernice,

The article by Ian Griggs says a lot.

So far however, I have only been able to find copies of the first pages of the Worker and the Militant, as the entire issues were apparently not entered into the record.

BK

[Bernice Moore]

Can anyone identify the person in this photo and determine what he is doing?

How many photos are there?

The DPD originally found some photos and one negative.

How many photos and negatives are there?

Michael Paine now says he saw one of these photos the very moment he met Oswald.

Oswald's mom admitted she destroyed a copy after the assassination.

DeMohrenschildt found one years later.

A newspaper got a hold of one picture early on, and Life published another.

One publication altered the photo, eliminating the scope for some reason.

And the DPD tried to restage the photo and created more mystery.

Now this Liebler photo surfaces.

Who is that guy?

And the Dartmouth Prof. says the photo is real.

Which photo did he study?

Did he ever apply his techniques to a photo that was known to have been altered to see if it works?

BK

I have been asked by William Kelly to post this photograph. It was found in a discarded suitcase owned by the late Wesley Liebler, Attorney on the Warren Commission.

I FOUND THIS AND THE MANY THERe ALSO BILL WITHIN THE UNIV..POSTINGS OF THE DPD ARCHIVES.....I HAVEN'T A CLUE WHOM HE MAY BE..I HAVE BEEN CHECKING THE DPD PHOTOS..IT WAS JUST A THOUGHT..BUT NOTHING SO FAR.....HERE ARE SOME COPIES NOIICE WHAT SOME CALL THE DOG NOSE SEEN THROUGH THE FENCE THAT SOMEONE LEFT IN...I DO NOT KNOW NOW WHO MADE THE GIF BUT TO WHOMEVER MANY THANKS...B...IAN GRIGGS DID A VERY GOOD ARTICLE THAT EXPLAINS EACH AND EVERY FYI... http://www.jfklancer.com/byphotos.html )

Thanks Bernice,

The article by Ian Griggs says a lot.

So far however, I have only been able to find copies of the first pages of the Worker and the Militant, as the entire issues were apparently not entered into the record.

BK

So far however, I have only been able to find copies of the first pages of the Worker and the Militant, as the entire issues were apparently not entered into the record.

YOUR ALWAYS WELCOME BILL IF ANYTHING COMES ALONG I WILL LET YOU KNOW......MUCH WAS LEFT CONVENIENTLY OUT OF THE RECORD ..IMO..BEST B..