Bernice Moore

Ter I am pleased you replied to kathy i have been wondering how she has been making out..and KATHY you are being remembered in the nightly prayers..THEY CONTINUE AND WILL,,,.LET US KNOW HOW YOU ARE GETTING ALONG AND DO KEEP YOUR CHIN UP..AND THINK POSITIVE YES YOU CAN..AND YOU WILL.... TAKE CARE B.

well now bill i shall bet no one ever heard that one before But he ate it! makes one wonder what's next...thanks..take care..b

david the quote is within this new article by dr.jim fetzer and jim marrs... Your article: THE DARTMOUTH JFK-PHOTO FIASCO >>>>> Author: Jim Fetzer and Jim Marrs >>>>> >>>>> Description: A Dartmouth computer scientist, Hany Farid, claims that it is "extremely unlikely" that backyard photographs of accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald are fake based on a digital analysis of shadows. Had he conducted a literature search, he would >>>> have known >>>>> that the shadows are but one of multiple indications of fakery. Even if he were right about the shadows, he would be wrong about the photos, one of which was published in LIFE. >>>>> >>>>> Tags: Assassination, Books, Commission, Digital, Evidence, Head, IMAGE, JFK, Life, Police, Research, Time, Truth >>>>> >>>>> Article Location: http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-DARTM...091116-941.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> b

Lawrence Schiller and Billy Woodfield (the latter -Jack's biographer, of sorts) were "Two free lance photographers . . . " spent time shooting stills of Marilyn Monroe in her last unfinished film "Something's Got to Give". Schiller was also one of the few last people to see Marilyn alive On Saturday, August 4 (1962) when, at around 10 AM he arrived at her home saying he had come to discuss a magazine feature exploiting the pictures taken on the set of "Something's Got to Give". MARILYN MONROE, The Biography. Donald Spoto, 1993. pp 354 524, 566. Somewhere (I hate to be vague - but I cannot locate where I found this information but maybe it is known or has been posted here at one time or another) I read where it was Schiller who accompanied Earl Ruby when a tape recorder was secreted into Jack's room at the hospital and he made a final statement accepting all blame for the shooting of Oswald. Martha Hi Martha, Thanks for chiming in. I'm not usually one to judge a person, but this guy Schiller is something else. He hawks a tape recording of a Ruby deathbed interview, tells the FBI who one of Mark Lane's confidential informants is, and is hired by Life Mag as a specialist on homosexuals to write an analysis of Clay Shaw. The more I learn about the guy the more he irritates me. And here he is, reportedly, working for CBS in 1967, getting someone that hasn't yet been identified, to pose in the backyard four years to the day - week - Marina is said to have taken the photos of Oswald with the murder weapons and commie mags. While I haven't confirmed that Schiller took this particular back yard photo yet, or was working for CBS at the time, CBS was most certainly working on a special report on the assassination, and John J. McCloy and the photo evidence had a lot to do with it. ARRB MD 17 – CBS – Memorandum from Les Midgley to John J. McCloy (1/11/67) pg http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...absPageId=66496 Dear Mr. McCloy: Thanks very much for letting me see this proof. I agree that it is a very well reasoned and excellent summary of the critics and their cases. Maybe Professor Goodhart would be a good man to participate in our project. We will talk to him as well as Lord Devlin. As we get into the pathology side of the case it seems more important than ever for us to get a statement – if possible – from Humes, Boswell and Finck that examination of the x-rays and color pictures does not change their findings and we certainly would appreciate your assistance in obtaining some. All three have absolutely refused to be interviewed and Dr. Humes would not even see one of our producers in person, preferring to talk on the telephone. (I have been told, by a man who is a personal friend of Dr. Humes, that he says one of the x-rays shows a wire left in the bullet path through the neck. If this is indeed true, publication of same would resolve forever the discussion about back verses neck wound and generally settle the dust about the autopsy.) Thanks again for your interest, Leslie Midgley Executive Producer, Special Reports Mr. John J. McCloy Milbank, Tweed, Hedley, & McCloy One Chase Manhattan Plaza New York, New York, January 11, 1967 McCloy & CBS Report 1967 - June 28, 1967 10:00 PM 4 parts UNREHEARSED NEWS INTERVIEW WITH JOHN J. MCCLOY, FORMER HIGH COMMISSION NARA R# 1993.06.25.16:29:48:120140 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...sPageId=1026077 CBS ASSASSINAITONS STUDY CONFIRMS WARREN REPORT Oswald 201 File, Vol. 55 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...sPageId=1026246 CBS NEWS INQUIRY: THE WARREN REPORT http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=2 Schiller tapes interview with Ruby, 12/16/66 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...ancedResults.do March 16, 67 Schiller and Life and Homos http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=734681 JFK Exhibit F-178 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=354 HSCA Report, Volume II pg 419 Analysis of Backyard Photos http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...absPageId=38823 here's a few more bill you may not have...b hey marty.. Chapter 15, The Select Committee on Assassinations, The ... To firmly implant the idea that the JFK assassination was a Castro plot. ..... The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald, whose co-director, Lawrence Schiller, ... www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp15.html - Cached coverthistory.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_archive.html - Cached * WHO WAS CHARLIE MANSON! How many of the people involved in that assassination worked in our state department, ...... Just like the FBI did not find James Earl Ray. Scotland Yard did it. .... He was almost dead out at Community Hospital after just going down our ..... A man named Lawrence Schiller made a record with Jack Ruby on January the ... www.think-aboutit.com/. ________________________________ Chapter 15, The Select Committee on Assassinations, The ... To firmly implant the idea that the JFK assassination was a Castro plot. ..... The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald, whose co-director, Lawrence Schiller, ... www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp15.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- www.blogtoplist.com/politics/blogdetails-24956.html * America in the 1960s | USA Today (Society for the Advancement of ... When, in 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested after the assassination of Pres. John F. Kennedy, interrogated, and two days later killed, Schiller was ... and 'Into the Mirror," all of which he made into television mini-series for CBS. ... findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2756.../ai_n27506242

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..

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...

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..

DAVID HERE ARE SOME OTHERS FOR YOU MAINLY TAKEN IN RUSSIA.FOR YOUR COMPARISONS...B...FWTW

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

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 )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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...

Subject: "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" ------------------ The show was simply superb - one of the best done documentaries on the assassination I've seen in some time. It was actually done as the 6th in the Nigel Turner (BBC) series: 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy' and this was entitled (appropriately): 'The Truth Shall Set You Free'. The presentation opened with brief excerpts from Marina Oswald, and others - as to how the subsequent coverup has corrupted and undermined the country - giving rise to an ongoing and fundamental cynicism that is unrelenting.. Particular anger emanated from a Mr. Tannenbaum - who had been one of the counsels working with the House and Senate Assassinations Committee in 1978, and who had left when it became obvious the Committee was 'kowtowing' to the executive intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI) whom he referred to as resisting their requests for information every step of the way. There followed a series of vignettes - each featuring a person who - through their investigations, research, released information - have shed light on the dark corners of this event/ The first was Tom Wilson - with 30 years experience using imaging and photonics techniques in the steel industry. He has now applied this techniques - along with computer enhancement - to examine again the Zapruder film. What was revealed - using high resolution pixel imaging and Fourier analysis - was nothing short of amazing. In the head shot frame - for example - one could actually see, with Wilson's techniques- the image of the bullet, inside JFK's skull and its *track* moving from the FRONT to the REAR of the skull. Undeniable high level, high quality evidence that the shot did indeed come from the front - as we have been maintaining all along. Showing the detailed iamgery, Wilson himself found his eyes welling with tears. One could sense his painful awareness of the lies and distortions we've been fed all these years, co-mingling with his frustration that up to now none of 'officialdom' has taken his work seriously or at least tried to replicate it. He also indicated that on going to Dealey Plaza and attempting to reconstruct the placement of all key people, etc. he could not get things to fit - with the motion of the bullet seen in his imagery. However, on further inspection - and on locating a storm sewer cover at the side of Elm St. - he found that the problem was solved and indeed the shot could only have been made from that location (the fatal head shot). This was confirmed by Jack Brazil and a military team he put together in 1992, who found: a) a man could easily fit inside the storm sewer drain and have an openh view onto Elm St. and a good shot at the motorcade. the man could easily make his escape (in something like 20-23 minutes) by following out the storm sewer to the Trinity River - making his way clear and free. The scenes tracing the sewer escape route were sobering indeed - and show that indeed, the killing could be carried out as a perfect crime, with the perpetrators getting away scott free. After the Brazil demo, Tom Wilson was seen again - now examining the autopsy photos with his techniques and comparing them with the photonic/pixel densities in the head of JFK as disclosed in the pristine Mary Moorman photo (aimed toward the GK, JFK's head visible from the rear). His imaging analysis showed where genuine human tissue was located in the autopsy film- by comparing it with pixel densities in the pre-autopsy condition (as exposed from the Moorman film). What was revealed was nothing less than startling: massive sections of 'fake' material covering nearly the entire rear of JFK's head (Wilson referred to it was Mortician's plaster). This same material was also used in the front of the head, to cover the entrance wound there.. Wilson's fine work, and detailed analysis, showed also what many of us have been saying all along - that the autopsy photos are indeed fakes. Attention then shifted to Lt. Col. Dan Marvin, with 15 years experience as a paratrooper and eight combat campaigns. He has 21 awards and decorations and servied in the Elite Special Forces, the Green Berets. He had volunteered for Special Forces Guerilla Training at Fort Bragg, NC only several weeks after the assassination. He noted also that nearly all the instruction techniques at the 'Guerrila Warfare School' was classified. The most secret of all - conducted within an enclosed and wire fence perimeter - was that dealing with terrorism and assassinations. His instructors in this phase noted how the JFK assassination was "a classic example of the way to organize a program to eliminate a head of state while 'pointing the finger' at a lone assassin" (His words). He noted that this also included a mock layout of Dealey Plaza indicating where all the shooters were located. He indicated that he and other trainees had also been told point blank that 'Oswald was not involved- he was set up'. He also recalled the remark in passing of one of the CIA instructors to another : "Things really did go well in Dealey Plaza that day, didn't they?" Marvin's segment ended by recalling how in 1965 he was asked to kill a Naval person in the States- a William Bruce Pitzer. He refused, of course, but suspects that someone else he knew took the job. Not long thereafter- Pitzer (who was a Visual Aids officer at Bethesda - and had the actual film footage of the autopsy) was found dead with a .38 in his right hand and a gunshot wound to the head. (A later climp interviews Pitzer's Petty Officer assistant who noted that this was odd since Pitzer had always been left-handed, and indeed had been kidded in card games for 'dealing the wrong way around'.) The presentation concludes by interviewing two other researchers who have - based on released documents- shown how the original assassination plots directed at Castro, were re-directed at JFK in something called 'Operation Freedom'. They even have documented evidence that RFK called one of the leaders of this group and said to his 'you did this to my brother.' Daeron Link long gone... ******************* See..... The Basics of Photogrammetry http://www.geodetic.com/whatis.htm The Men Who Killed Kennedy - Part 6 - 1 of 5 10:02 - Part 6: 1 of 5 "The Truth Shall Make You Free" http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/..._Killed_Kennedy B..

"Fair Play" (Richard Bartholemew), in the middle of review of "Assassination Science": I would be remiss if I did not mention another oversight by Fetzer: his complete omission of the digital photographic photometry experiments of former U.S. Steel scientist Tom Wilson. Those experiments, completed and presented years earlier, but never published, reached many of the same conclusions as Fetzer's contributors (Harrison E. Livingstone, High Treason 2, [New York: Carroll & Graf, 1992], pp. 338-39). I saw both of Wilson's initial public presentations. The first was at the Assassination Symposium on John F. Kennedy (ASK) in Dallas in 1991. It was a presentation involving charts of mathematical calculations and color slides of computer-processed images. That debut of Wilson's work was videotaped by South by Southwest, the conference organizers, but the quality of the presentation and the video was compromised by a loud party in the next-door ballroom. The two ballrooms were separated by a non-soundproof, movable partition. In what is at best an amazing coincidence, that party was part of a reunion of U.S. Secret Service agents, some of whom had served on Kennedy's Dallas trip. That was learned about three years later by Vince Palamara while interviewing some of those former agents. http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/VP/0052-VP.TXT **************************************************** Testimony of Thomas Wilson -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dallas, Texas -- November 18, 1994 Hearing -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MR. MARWELL: Mr. Thomas Wilson, please. MR. WILSON: First, I would like to thank the Board for allowing me to come here and make my presentation to you. I am a private citizen, an American citizen, and that is what dictated that I be here today. I have a business which is consulting with image processing, with computer analysis. I am also qualified in Federal Court as an expert in the flow of material as related to entrance and exit wounds in a cadaver from images. I have worked on several cases involving a murder trial, civil suit, and so forth. My findings have resulted in the exhumation of a cadaver to prove that the data was real and verifiable. The cadaver was exhumed, and it was verifiable. The thing that I would like to present to the Board today, and I do not mean to demean any agency, that is not my task, but this is the real world. I have worked for many large corporations, sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and I would just like to briefly go through my attempts to get articles from the Archives. In 1991, I visited the Archives and looked at some of the material. I asked for a request for authenticity on several things, and I will just go through a few articles here. On July 2nd, 1991, I wrote to the National Archives and Records Administration. After conferring with people there, and during my visit to the Archives in June, I viewed two three-quarter inch beta films that were the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films. During my viewing, I requested an established authenticity of where these films came from, where they were copied, who copied them, and the process in which they were copied. In July 1991, I received a letter from the Archives, and if the Board desires I can have this copied and sent to you at some date: In reply to your letter of July 2nd, we are unable to answer completely all of the questions you posed for us concerning the administrative history and handling of the originals and various copies. It goes on and it discusses the three-quarter inch copies: This copy of the Zapruder film was received as part of the files of the 1978 House Assassination Committee. It is a 16 millimeter enhanced color copy. Now I have to tell you, I just hate the word "enhanced" because enhanced means that somebody has changed something for the human eye, and the human eye just is not good enough to present evidence in a murder case. So here we have enhanced things being used as evidence for the Warren Commission, for the House Assassination Committee, and these people are trying to make an honest determination based on a false image. So they said in their other holdings they have the original 8 millimeter film held as a courtesy and so forth, and so on. The final paragraph says: You must realize that while we can trace the providence and our continuous possession of these materials since they arrived in our custody, we cannot after these many years provide names, dates, types of equipment, or copying processes. Well, these are the images of the assassination of our President. This boggles my mind. On May 8, 1992, I sent a request in. I have a request under the Freedom of Information Act. FBI photography expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt to examine the photograph Exhibits 133-A and 133-B. My request is for information on the photograph of a person, head removed from the photograph, holding the rifle and simulating the pose in Exhibit 133-A. I asked for a copy of the photograph, name of the person holding the rifle, the title of the person taking the photograph, the type of camera, the film used, the department that developed it. The exact location where the photograph was taken with a reference to north, south, east and west. The reason that I asked this is I have analyzed the so-called "Lee Harvey Oswald backyard photograph" and have been able to establish the time of day that that photograph was taken through various means, and there is a little -- getting that information. But the interesting part about it is that the FBI reenactment has several qualities within that reenactment that are also in the Lee Harvey Oswald backyard photograph, and this should definitely be explored because there are photographic image anomalies present in both. That was in May 8th, 1992. The National Archives wrote me back on May 26th. They were very responsive. I thought, oh, boy, this is it. Here is what they said: This is in response to your letter, a Freedom of Information Act about the assassination, we can provide a photographic print of the Commission Exhibit that you specified at a cost of $6.25. Very efficient, it got me exactly what I wanted. This is the photograph that I am referring to. Now comes the Catch-22. I wrote to the Director of FBI on June 5th, 1992. I said: Gentlemen, I have a request under the Freedom of Information Act. I talked about Mr. Shaneyfelt's analyses. As far as I can tell, and I have his deposition, this is the one gentleman who did the best he could to analyze the information that he had and determine the shots and so forth, and the fake or not fake photographs. I asked the same questions of the FBI. On August 22nd, 1992, I got a letter back. This is in reference to your request -- this is astounding to me, and I think the Board should certainly look into this matter -- efforts were made by FOIA personnel who are familiar with the JFK assassination documents and they have been unsuccessful in locating the photograph, the one I just showed you. The FBI does not have the personnel resources available to conduct the research necessary to locate the photograph you described. The records we currently have processed under the provisions of FOIA are 202,134 pages. If you would please enclose a check for $20,203.40, we will send this information to you. Now honest researchers trying to get information, and I have worked for some big companies, believe me, I can see what happened. Well, I didn't have the $20,000 or I think I would have sent it just to see what happened. Okay, so then I wrote to the Director of FBI on June 5th, 1992, and I asked them -- I told them where I found the Shaneyfelt exhibit. I told them they could have it in file so-and-so for $6.52. I wasn't being facetious. I was trying to make a point that I am desperate for evidence. No reply. Then in January 8th, 1993, I wrote a letter to Mr. O'Brien, at the FBI -- Chief of the FOI Section, excuse me, and the purpose of the letter is to inquire into the status of my request that I just mentioned. So months have gone by. I would like to take this opportunity to again request your assistance on Item H since Mr. Shaneyfelt did the analysis on the Oswald backyard photograph and the rifle, your Department must have a file under his name. I am only interested in the FBI files containing his analyses, techniques, data and testimony on the photograph and the rifle. I got a letter back saying that there are 84 pages of documents they will send me at no charge because someone else had asked this first and they had it. So I get the impression that the only reason I got 84 pages is because I am number two. If were number one, I would not have gotten this. And this was free of charge, including transportation. So I am starting to wonder, I realize our government is trying to help, but this is getting to be a little bit ridiculous. They also sent an explanation of the exemptions, and there are many exemptions. One of the exemptions is listed, in the interest of national defense, and would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations. In August of 1993 I got another letter saying that they are sending me the 16 photographs, but I never really got the data. That brings me up-to-date with why I am really here. First off, I feel that it is absolutely necessary for me to see the analyses by the FBI of the photographs that they have in question on this assassination. I feel that it is absolutely necessary for me to go into the Archives and look at the autopsy photos. I have a request in to Mr. Burke Marshall for eight months, and I don't want to embarrass Mr. Burke Marshall but he got back to me recently and he right now is looking into the possibility of letting me go into the Archives to look at the autopsy photographs. If the information contained in the FBI analyses is security-wise, then I would ask for a security clearance as a United States citizen to look at this material, because what has happened is, for the first five years of looking into this situation, and I was drawn into this completely by accident -- I am not a research buff, I am an engineer. I work with the facts, I don't have a theory. Since the 25th anniversary I have found out several things. For instance, Mr. Mack was talking about the Mary Moorman photo. I can verify absolutely with hard scientific data that there is a shooter up there on the Knoll, no question about it. Mr. Mack and Mr. White are the fathers of that finding and I will verify that. But in the last years, when I tried to bring this to the public's attention, I decided, you know, you can go and you can prove that Mr. Oswald did this, he didn't do this, all these theories, I am going to concentrate on one thing, the head wound. That is all I am going to talk about, and I want to tell you what I have and what I would like to do about giving this evidence up. I have chain of evidence photographs that were held by private citizens since their inception. They have been signed and dated. Everyone that has touched these photographs is a part of the chain of evidence. This chain of evidence brings out three things that I am going to bring to the State of Texas because Mr. Kennedy, our President, was murdered in Texas. Lee Harvey Oswald was here in Texas. Lee Harvey Oswald was arraigned for the murder of the President. As I understand, now I have never seen an official document, but I have certainly read a lot, he was arraigned for murder in Texas. Now I am going to bring hard scientific proof, chain of evidence photographs, data of everything I have done, all of the protocol that I have used which can be reproduced by any agency of the government anywhere, and I am going to bring that in the next few months. It is going to prove three things positively. Number one, Lee Harvey Oswald did not fire the shot that hit President Kennedy in the head. If the shot that hit President Kennedy in the head is the fatal shot, then there is a still a murderer on the loose. I am going to prove the direction that the missile came into his head, and the damage that was done within the head from these images as chain of evidence, and I am going to prove what happened to the missile when it struck President in the right front forehead. Now, there are three things that I would please request the Board to do. Number one, these documents are in various places, so if something happens to Tom Wilson I want to assure you that this will go forward, and I am not joking. Number two, I want to let you know that when this evidence is brought forth in Dallas, and there are some people that are going to make the arrangements for me, I would offer the Board, any government agency, to participate in this, and I would particularly like you to take my message back to the Senators from my State, Senator Specter, Senator Wolford and Rick Santorum who is going to be the next Senator. I can't speak for Marina Porter, Marina Oswald Porter, but I want to tell you that this woman had the right to know did her husband or did her husband not fire the fatal shot. I don't know anything else about Mr. Oswald, so I am going to request that she get in touch with her Senator from Texas, and when this evidence is submitted it will all be done in a public forum. If there is anything I can help you, the Board Members, or anything between now and when this is submitted, I will be very happy to do so, but I have the proof, I have it documented, it can be verified, and it is not a theory. CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM: Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Questions? DR. HALL: Yes, I have a question. What is the status of your FOIA request now? MR. WILSON: As of right now, I have not gotten anything from the FBI about seeing Mr. Shaneyfelt's files. I even telephoned down there. They were very cooperative, don't misunderstand me, but I said, is Mr. Shaneyfelt still alive, because you know we are all getting gray hair, we are going over the hill here, but I said I can even have an interview with him. I really want to see -- I have to say to you that after 30 years of working with this, working on everything in the industrial to tremendous forensic work, the things that I see in his analysis, I don't follow him, but that was 30 years ago, and it is wrong, it is flawed, and they will not let me have access to that file. I have it on appeal. DR. HALL: What I think would be very helpful to us is if you could provide us a list of the FOIA requests you have made and the status of those requests as you understand them at the moment, including, of course, to whom they were directed. MR. WILSON: Okay. Should I send it to the same address that I sent my initial letter? DR. HALL: Dr. Marwell will do the job for you. MR. WILSON: I will do that when I get back home shortly. DR. NELSON: I would like to add, Mr. Wilson, that our statute does not have the same exemptions as Freedom of Information Act. It has more exemptions than our statute does. You might want to compare the two of them when you start looking for exemptions, or postponement in this case. MR. WILSON: How do I get a copy of this? DR. NELSON: It should be in any library that has government documents. Mr. Marwell can provide you with that. MR. WILSON: If you would send it to me, I would appreciate it, yes. DR. NELSON: That is a difference in what will be postponed. There is a difference between being exempt, being totally exempted and postponed also. Under our statute we postpone. MR. WILSON: I realize that your task here also was to locate these images, okay, and rightfully so, but you understand these images cannot be given up until they have been presented as a chain of evidence in a murder trial, but believe me they are all documented and verifiable. CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM: We will look forward to that. MR. MARWELL: These images that you described, have they been seen by anyone else? MR. WILSON: They have been seen by the person that owns them, and they have been by Dr. Sillwyck. MR. MARWELL: But they are previously unknown to the general public? MR. WILSON: Let's say this, they are all known. All these photographs are nothing that hasn't been available through whatever, but these are chain of evidence photographs. See in the House Committee, when they had the X-rays enhanced for the Assassination Committee, I have a copy of the frontal X-ray and I can see the terminology down there, and immediately I know how this X-ray was -- I will use the word "enhanced." Believe me, you don't ever want to use enhanced in this type of thing. I can see where they have done -- and I am not bringing in the technical jargon -- but they have done things to average data and when you average data you don't have the right thing. So I would like to see the 1978 House Committee, how are they going to analyze it? I understand they hired private firms. If this is really -- I can't believe that what I am doing now, and I am sure I am up to the government's status here as far as technology, maybe a little bit ahead. I just came from Comdex where Norgate has talked about some things in the future that I have done in the past couple of years. But if I could get to see how the House Committee analyzed those X-rays, if it is detrimental to our country, I would go for a secret clearance, and I would not divulge it, but I have to see it. I cannot rest until I see this. MR. MARWELL: Could you just give us an idea of what you mean by chain of evidence? MR. WILSON: Yes. In any trial, if you have a piece of evidence, let's say I got shot, and this is my coat and I have a hole in it. Well, if somebody takes this coat, they put it in a bag and they sign, I received this coat, so forth and so on, and date it and sign it. Now forensics wants to look at this hole and see where the hole came in or out, so they take this coat and they give it to John Smith. John Smith signs it and dates it, so that everywhere that here this piece of evidence has been, it knows exactly who had it and when they had it and where they had it. These photographs have never left the chain of evidence, and I must say that these photographs have been shown throughout the world for 30 years, everybody has looked at them, and they never saw what is in them. Our eyes just aren't good enough. CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM: Thank you, Mr. Wilson. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arrb/index68.htm All Witnesses Before the AARB. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arrb/index.htm#index ********************* On the TMWKK video.....Mr.Wison also shows his research........he analysed what he had found on his first trip to Dealey.. He went back a second time, as his findings showed him that a shot on a upward angle, trajectory had hit the President in the head... He redid his studies, and obtaiined the same results... B......

"Fair Play" (Richard Bartholemew), in the middle of review of "Assassination Science": I would be remiss if I did not mention another oversight by Fetzer: his complete omission of the digital photographic photometry experiments of former U.S. Steel scientist Tom Wilson. Those experiments, completed and presented years earlier, but never published, reached many of the same conclusions as Fetzer's contributors (Harrison E. Livingstone, High Treason 2, [New York: Carroll & Graf, 1992], pp. 338-39). I saw both of Wilson's initial public presentations. The first was at the Assassination Symposium on John F. Kennedy (ASK) in Dallas in 1991. It was a presentation involving charts of mathematical calculations and color slides of computer-processed images. That debut of Wilson's work was videotaped by South by Southwest, the conference organizers, but the quality of the presentation and the video was compromised by a loud party in the next-door ballroom. The two ballrooms were separated by a non-soundproof, movable partition. In what is at best an amazing coincidence, that party was part of a reunion of U.S. Secret Service agents, some of whom had served on Kennedy's Dallas trip. That was learned about three years later by Vince Palamara while interviewing some of those former agents. http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/VP/0052-VP.TXT **************************************************** Testimony of Thomas Wilson -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dallas, Texas -- November 18, 1994 Hearing -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MR. MARWELL: Mr. Thomas Wilson, please. MR. WILSON: First, I would like to thank the Board for allowing me to come here and make my presentation to you. I am a private citizen, an American citizen, and that is what dictated that I be here today. I have a business which is consulting with image processing, with computer analysis. I am also qualified in Federal Court as an expert in the flow of material as related to entrance and exit wounds in a cadaver from images. I have worked on several cases involving a murder trial, civil suit, and so forth. My findings have resulted in the exhumation of a cadaver to prove that the data was real and verifiable. The cadaver was exhumed, and it was verifiable. The thing that I would like to present to the Board today, and I do not mean to demean any agency, that is not my task, but this is the real world. I have worked for many large corporations, sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and I would just like to briefly go through my attempts to get articles from the Archives. In 1991, I visited the Archives and looked at some of the material. I asked for a request for authenticity on several things, and I will just go through a few articles here. On July 2nd, 1991, I wrote to the National Archives and Records Administration. After conferring with people there, and during my visit to the Archives in June, I viewed two three-quarter inch beta films that were the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films. During my viewing, I requested an established authenticity of where these films came from, where they were copied, who copied them, and the process in which they were copied. In July 1991, I received a letter from the Archives, and if the Board desires I can have this copied and sent to you at some date: In reply to your letter of July 2nd, we are unable to answer completely all of the questions you posed for us concerning the administrative history and handling of the originals and various copies. It goes on and it discusses the three-quarter inch copies: This copy of the Zapruder film was received as part of the files of the 1978 House Assassination Committee. It is a 16 millimeter enhanced color copy. Now I have to tell you, I just hate the word "enhanced" because enhanced means that somebody has changed something for the human eye, and the human eye just is not good enough to present evidence in a murder case. So here we have enhanced things being used as evidence for the Warren Commission, for the House Assassination Committee, and these people are trying to make an honest determination based on a false image. So they said in their other holdings they have the original 8 millimeter film held as a courtesy and so forth, and so on. The final paragraph says: You must realize that while we can trace the providence and our continuous possession of these materials since they arrived in our custody, we cannot after these many years provide names, dates, types of equipment, or copying processes. Well, these are the images of the assassination of our President. This boggles my mind. On May 8, 1992, I sent a request in. I have a request under the Freedom of Information Act. FBI photography expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt to examine the photograph Exhibits 133-A and 133-B. My request is for information on the photograph of a person, head removed from the photograph, holding the rifle and simulating the pose in Exhibit 133-A. I asked for a copy of the photograph, name of the person holding the rifle, the title of the person taking the photograph, the type of camera, the film used, the department that developed it. The exact location where the photograph was taken with a reference to north, south, east and west. The reason that I asked this is I have analyzed the so-called "Lee Harvey Oswald backyard photograph" and have been able to establish the time of day that that photograph was taken through various means, and there is a little -- getting that information. But the interesting part about it is that the FBI reenactment has several qualities within that reenactment that are also in the Lee Harvey Oswald backyard photograph, and this should definitely be explored because there are photographic image anomalies present in both. That was in May 8th, 1992. The National Archives wrote me back on May 26th. They were very responsive. I thought, oh, boy, this is it. Here is what they said: This is in response to your letter, a Freedom of Information Act about the assassination, we can provide a photographic print of the Commission Exhibit that you specified at a cost of $6.25. Very efficient, it got me exactly what I wanted. This is the photograph that I am referring to. Now comes the Catch-22. I wrote to the Director of FBI on June 5th, 1992. I said: Gentlemen, I have a request under the Freedom of Information Act. I talked about Mr. Shaneyfelt's analyses. As far as I can tell, and I have his deposition, this is the one gentleman who did the best he could to analyze the information that he had and determine the shots and so forth, and the fake or not fake photographs. I asked the same questions of the FBI. On August 22nd, 1992, I got a letter back. This is in reference to your request -- this is astounding to me, and I think the Board should certainly look into this matter -- efforts were made by FOIA personnel who are familiar with the JFK assassination documents and they have been unsuccessful in locating the photograph, the one I just showed you. The FBI does not have the personnel resources available to conduct the research necessary to locate the photograph you described. The records we currently have processed under the provisions of FOIA are 202,134 pages. If you would please enclose a check for $20,203.40, we will send this information to you. Now honest researchers trying to get information, and I have worked for some big companies, believe me, I can see what happened. Well, I didn't have the $20,000 or I think I would have sent it just to see what happened. Okay, so then I wrote to the Director of FBI on June 5th, 1992, and I asked them -- I told them where I found the Shaneyfelt exhibit. I told them they could have it in file so-and-so for $6.52. I wasn't being facetious. I was trying to make a point that I am desperate for evidence. No reply. Then in January 8th, 1993, I wrote a letter to Mr. O'Brien, at the FBI -- Chief of the FOI Section, excuse me, and the purpose of the letter is to inquire into the status of my request that I just mentioned. So months have gone by. I would like to take this opportunity to again request your assistance on Item H since Mr. Shaneyfelt did the analysis on the Oswald backyard photograph and the rifle, your Department must have a file under his name. I am only interested in the FBI files containing his analyses, techniques, data and testimony on the photograph and the rifle. I got a letter back saying that there are 84 pages of documents they will send me at no charge because someone else had asked this first and they had it. So I get the impression that the only reason I got 84 pages is because I am number two. If were number one, I would not have gotten this. And this was free of charge, including transportation. So I am starting to wonder, I realize our government is trying to help, but this is getting to be a little bit ridiculous. They also sent an explanation of the exemptions, and there are many exemptions. One of the exemptions is listed, in the interest of national defense, and would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations. In August of 1993 I got another letter saying that they are sending me the 16 photographs, but I never really got the data. That brings me up-to-date with why I am really here. First off, I feel that it is absolutely necessary for me to see the analyses by the FBI of the photographs that they have in question on this assassination. I feel that it is absolutely necessary for me to go into the Archives and look at the autopsy photos. I have a request in to Mr. Burke Marshall for eight months, and I don't want to embarrass Mr. Burke Marshall but he got back to me recently and he right now is looking into the possibility of letting me go into the Archives to look at the autopsy photographs. If the information contained in the FBI analyses is security-wise, then I would ask for a security clearance as a United States citizen to look at this material, because what has happened is, for the first five years of looking into this situation, and I was drawn into this completely by accident -- I am not a research buff, I am an engineer. I work with the facts, I don't have a theory. Since the 25th anniversary I have found out several things. For instance, Mr. Mack was talking about the Mary Moorman photo. I can verify absolutely with hard scientific data that there is a shooter up there on the Knoll, no question about it. Mr. Mack and Mr. White are the fathers of that finding and I will verify that. But in the last years, when I tried to bring this to the public's attention, I decided, you know, you can go and you can prove that Mr. Oswald did this, he didn't do this, all these theories, I am going to concentrate on one thing, the head wound. That is all I am going to talk about, and I want to tell you what I have and what I would like to do about giving this evidence up. I have chain of evidence photographs that were held by private citizens since their inception. They have been signed and dated. Everyone that has touched these photographs is a part of the chain of evidence. This chain of evidence brings out three things that I am going to bring to the State of Texas because Mr. Kennedy, our President, was murdered in Texas. Lee Harvey Oswald was here in Texas. Lee Harvey Oswald was arraigned for the murder of the President. As I understand, now I have never seen an official document, but I have certainly read a lot, he was arraigned for murder in Texas. Now I am going to bring hard scientific proof, chain of evidence photographs, data of everything I have done, all of the protocol that I have used which can be reproduced by any agency of the government anywhere, and I am going to bring that in the next few months. It is going to prove three things positively. Number one, Lee Harvey Oswald did not fire the shot that hit President Kennedy in the head. If the shot that hit President Kennedy in the head is the fatal shot, then there is a still a murderer on the loose. I am going to prove the direction that the missile came into his head, and the damage that was done within the head from these images as chain of evidence, and I am going to prove what happened to the missile when it struck President in the right front forehead. Now, there are three things that I would please request the Board to do. Number one, these documents are in various places, so if something happens to Tom Wilson I want to assure you that this will go forward, and I am not joking. Number two, I want to let you know that when this evidence is brought forth in Dallas, and there are some people that are going to make the arrangements for me, I would offer the Board, any government agency, to participate in this, and I would particularly like you to take my message back to the Senators from my State, Senator Specter, Senator Wolford and Rick Santorum who is going to be the next Senator. I can't speak for Marina Porter, Marina Oswald Porter, but I want to tell you that this woman had the right to know did her husband or did her husband not fire the fatal shot. I don't know anything else about Mr. Oswald, so I am going to request that she get in touch with her Senator from Texas, and when this evidence is submitted it will all be done in a public forum. If there is anything I can help you, the Board Members, or anything between now and when this is submitted, I will be very happy to do so, but I have the proof, I have it documented, it can be verified, and it is not a theory. CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM: Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Questions? DR. HALL: Yes, I have a question. What is the status of your FOIA request now? MR. WILSON: As of right now, I have not gotten anything from the FBI about seeing Mr. Shaneyfelt's files. I even telephoned down there. They were very cooperative, don't misunderstand me, but I said, is Mr. Shaneyfelt still alive, because you know we are all getting gray hair, we are going over the hill here, but I said I can even have an interview with him. I really want to see -- I have to say to you that after 30 years of working with this, working on everything in the industrial to tremendous forensic work, the things that I see in his analysis, I don't follow him, but that was 30 years ago, and it is wrong, it is flawed, and they will not let me have access to that file. I have it on appeal. DR. HALL: What I think would be very helpful to us is if you could provide us a list of the FOIA requests you have made and the status of those requests as you understand them at the moment, including, of course, to whom they were directed. MR. WILSON: Okay. Should I send it to the same address that I sent my initial letter? DR. HALL: Dr. Marwell will do the job for you. MR. WILSON: I will do that when I get back home shortly. DR. NELSON: I would like to add, Mr. Wilson, that our statute does not have the same exemptions as Freedom of Information Act. It has more exemptions than our statute does. You might want to compare the two of them when you start looking for exemptions, or postponement in this case. MR. WILSON: How do I get a copy of this? DR. NELSON: It should be in any library that has government documents. Mr. Marwell can provide you with that. MR. WILSON: If you would send it to me, I would appreciate it, yes. DR. NELSON: That is a difference in what will be postponed. There is a difference between being exempt, being totally exempted and postponed also. Under our statute we postpone. MR. WILSON: I realize that your task here also was to locate these images, okay, and rightfully so, but you understand these images cannot be given up until they have been presented as a chain of evidence in a murder trial, but believe me they are all documented and verifiable. CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM: We will look forward to that. MR. MARWELL: These images that you described, have they been seen by anyone else? MR. WILSON: They have been seen by the person that owns them, and they have been by Dr. Sillwyck. MR. MARWELL: But they are previously unknown to the general public? MR. WILSON: Let's say this, they are all known. All these photographs are nothing that hasn't been available through whatever, but these are chain of evidence photographs. See in the House Committee, when they had the X-rays enhanced for the Assassination Committee, I have a copy of the frontal X-ray and I can see the terminology down there, and immediately I know how this X-ray was -- I will use the word "enhanced." Believe me, you don't ever want to use enhanced in this type of thing. I can see where they have done -- and I am not bringing in the technical jargon -- but they have done things to average data and when you average data you don't have the right thing. So I would like to see the 1978 House Committee, how are they going to analyze it? I understand they hired private firms. If this is really -- I can't believe that what I am doing now, and I am sure I am up to the government's status here as far as technology, maybe a little bit ahead. I just came from Comdex where Norgate has talked about some things in the future that I have done in the past couple of years. But if I could get to see how the House Committee analyzed those X-rays, if it is detrimental to our country, I would go for a secret clearance, and I would not divulge it, but I have to see it. I cannot rest until I see this. MR. MARWELL: Could you just give us an idea of what you mean by chain of evidence? MR. WILSON: Yes. In any trial, if you have a piece of evidence, let's say I got shot, and this is my coat and I have a hole in it. Well, if somebody takes this coat, they put it in a bag and they sign, I received this coat, so forth and so on, and date it and sign it. Now forensics wants to look at this hole and see where the hole came in or out, so they take this coat and they give it to John Smith. John Smith signs it and dates it, so that everywhere that here this piece of evidence has been, it knows exactly who had it and when they had it and where they had it. These photographs have never left the chain of evidence, and I must say that these photographs have been shown throughout the world for 30 years, everybody has looked at them, and they never saw what is in them. Our eyes just aren't good enough. CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM: Thank you, Mr. Wilson. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arrb/index68.htm All Witnesses Before the AARB. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arrb/index.htm#index ********************* On the TMWKK video.....Mr.Wison also shows his research........he analysed what he had found on his first trip to Dealey.. He went back a second time, as his findings showed him that a shot on a upward angle, trajectory had hit the President in the head... He redid his studies, and obtaiined the same results... B......

hey lee remember the dogs nose through the fence well some call it that...wazit also.....b...

The quality of the National Archives' photographic copy of this hand written report is so poor that many of its words cannot be made out in a scanned copy. Consequently, we have provided below a typed copy ] CD - 87 Folder 1 CO2 34030 11/22 9:55 To: Chief Rowley From: Max D. Phillips Subject: 8mm movie film showing President Kennedy being shot Enclosed is an 8mm movie film taken by Mr. A. Zapruder, 501 Elm St., Dallas Texas (RI8-6071) Mr.. Zapruder was photographing the President at the instant he was shot. According to Mr. Zapruder, the position of the assassin was behind Mr. Zapruder. Note: Disregard personel scenes shown on Mr. Zapruder’s film.. Mr. Zapruder is in custody of the "master" film. Two prints were given to SAIC Sorrels, this date. The third print is forwarded. Max D. Phillips Special Agent - PRS b...

here it is raymond from this trivia library .com part 7 site.. 6:00-6:30 P.M. Interrogation, Captain Fritz's Office "In time I will be able to show you that this is not my picture, but I don't want to answer any more questions. . . . I will not discuss this photograph [which was used on the cover of Feb. 21, 1964 Life magazine] without advice of an attorney. . . . There was another rifle in the building. I have seen it. Warren Caster had two rifles, a 30.06 Mauser and a .22 for his son. . . . That picture is not mine, but the face is mine. The picture has been made by superimposing my face. The other part of the picture is not me at all, and I have never seen this picture before. I understand photography real well, and that, in time, I will be able to show you that is not my picture and that it has been made by someone else. . . . It was entirely possible that the Police Dept. has superimposed this part of the photograph over the body of someone else. . . . © 1975 - 1981 by David Wallechinsky & Irving Wallace Reproduced with permission from "The People's Almanac" series of books. All rights reserved. You Are Here: Trivia » Last Words of Lee Harvey Oswald » JFK Assassination Last Words of Lee Harvey Oswald Part 7 « JFK Assassination Last Words of Lee Harvey Oswald Part 6 JFK Assassination Last Words of Lee Harvey Oswald Part 8 »

Can anyone cite the actual source for this statement? HI RAYMOND IT'S FROM ONE OF FRITZ'S NOTES,NUMBER 5 BUT THE WORDING IS NOT EXACTLY AS SCRIBED AT MAE'S SITE.. B..OR COULD BE PERHAPS WITHIN FRIT'ZS TESTIMONY...

from lancer thanks...b Were the photos, as some have written, using the conflicting publications to send a message that Lee Oswald was working for both sides? Was this why the photo Marina had in the closet was being saved for June, his daughter? Goldsmith also noted this dilemma: The background is virtually identical in the photos, to an extent that is highly improbable if the photos were simply snapped by Marina Oswald, with the requisite rewinding motions made inbetween shots; the perfect, or nearly perfect, match between the backgrounds indicates either that a single background shot was used to create the photos, or that a tripod was used to take the shots (or both). (Note from Debra, the HSCA panel went over this opinion here: http://www.jfklancer.com/rifle_hsca.html . Scroll down to "(e) The identical backgrounds.") and The Militant and The Worker were the publications of Marxist organizations that were enemies; it makes no sense, from a Marxist's point of view, to put them together as Oswald did. (Course on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, John Goldsmith, Spring 1994, Spring 1995 http://hum.uchicago.edu/~jagoldsm/Papers/JFK/11_HCSA.pdf ) -- What makes me wonder somewhat about the HSCA's findings is this document -- found by John Armstrong -- written about by Tomlin on his website. "John Armstrong sent me a newly released HSCA document regarding the backyard photos which is extremely interesting. Apparently HSCA staff drafted reports based on evidence and sent the reports to each member of the photo panel for comments and suggestions. The document I am looking at is a transmittal letter returning a report on the backyard photos, from one member of the photo panel, David B. Eisendrath of Brooklyn, to Mickey Goldsmith, HSCA senior staff counsel. One of Eisendrath*s comments is very intriguing": QUOTE **I have already written to you about the photogrammetry of the backyard pictures and after several rereadings STILL feel that this should be re-edited, re-calculated, or destroyed. It*s a bomb-shell and should not be published in its present form.** UNQUOTE (from http://www.whokilledjfk.net/not%20investigate.htm ) ---

from a post at lancer thanks....("Firearms, Photographs, & Lee Harvey Oswald" by Ian Griggs http://www.jfklancer.com/byphotos.html ) From John Goldsmith, professor at University of Chicago: 1( At least one of the negatives found (or allegedly found) by the police at the Paines' house showed a pattern of scratches which positively associated it with the Imperial Reflex camera that Robert Oswald turned over to the FBI; this result was established by photographic experts assembled by the HSCA. 2. Marina Oswald's testimony to the Warren Commission (although the inconsistencies in this account could arguably make this testimony into an argument against the validity of the photos); 3. de Mohrenschildt's testimony; 4. statements from workers at The Militant/The Worker (which?) that they had received a copy of the photo end quote b...

JOHN WAS HE ASKED TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION.??WAS THE QUESTIONING LEADING UP TO SUCH THE SAME AS WITH OTHER WITNESSES ??THANKS...B

hi Greg here is some info from harrison livingstone -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FROM HARRISON LIVINGSTONE HIGH TREASON 11 PAGE 454...SEE AMAZON SEARCH BOOK.. Oswald's wife, Marina Oswald, is the one who supposedly took the backyard pictures. However, in a recently recorded interview, she said of the backyard photos, "THESE AREN'T THE PICTURES I TOOK" (Livingstone 454, emphasis added). b..

Please correct me if in error.but as I understand this.....just the one photo was examed....what about the other two and were , or was this an original from the n/as or a copy and this was i think a digital copy but the backyard photos taken were not....thanks for any further info...what effect would a digital copy have on any study..b

Hi, John. De Mohrenschildt was a shrewd businessman. What does that have to do with Zapruder's home movie of the President passing by? They wanted to split the profits? What profits? It was just a brief home movie. No one knew the President was going to die supposedly. Also there seems to be 2 factions regarding Kennedy's murder. Those (Cuban Exiles, the Mob) who hated Castro and were angry with Kennedy for not liberating Cuba. And those who wanted Oswald to take the blame for killing Kennedy, a single lone gunman -- LBJ, CIA, Military, Big Business/oil barons. LBJ won the day it seems to me. Kathy C Zapruder Film Set for August Video Release Footage of JFK Assassination Likely to Restart Debate By George Lardner Jr. Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, June 26, 1998; Page B01 For Abraham Zapruder, who made the movie, Frame 313 became a recurring nightmare. The film would play out in his dreams until the horrific head shot that killed the president snapped him awake. "I have seen it so many times," Zapruder, the Dallas dress manufacturer and accidental chronicler of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, said in a tearful deposition for the Warren Commission in 1964. "The thing would come every night -- I wake up and see this." Soon, anyone with a VCR will be able to see it and freeze-frame it again and again. Zapruder's silent 26-second film of Kennedy's murder, long tightly held by the Zapruder family, is coming in August to a video store near you in shattering color, with footage and details never shown before. The price: $19.98 for a VHS cassette, $24.98 for a digital video disc. Effectively upstaging the government, which resolved last year to seize the historic 1963 film on Aug. 1, 1998, and make it "available to the public at the lowest possible cost," Zapruder's heirs have teamed up with a leading video production company to put together a digitally enhanced version of the in-camera original that experts say is far clearer than any of the copies shown over the years. At the same time, lawyers for the Zapruder family have been asking the government for $18.5 million as the price for making the 8mm original itself a publicly owned "assassination record." Ticking away at 18.3 frames a second, it is the clock to Kennedy's murder and the best evidence of it. Some appraisers say it could bring much more at private auction. Some researchers think the Zapruders have made more than enough money from it already. "The first time I saw it, I literally gasped -- because it's so shocking," said Waleed Ali, president of MPI Home Video of Orland Park, Ill., which is producing the video. "It makes the one Oliver Stone used [for the movie "JFK"] look like a pale ghost. The clarity is breathtaking. This is literally as crisp and clear as the original in the vault." At some other crucial moments, though, the video seems just as blurred and puzzling as the original, especially when Zapruder jiggled his Bell & Howell camera in apparent reaction to the gunshots and perhaps other distractions. Zapruder had the best vantage point in Dealey Plaza, standing on a concrete abutment at the crest of a grassy knoll, but he also had vertigo, which made him hesitant to climb up on the ledge. Luckily for history, one of his assistants, Marilyn Sitzman, climbed up with him and held him steady as the fateful motorcade turned onto Elm Street. Titled "Image of an Assassination: A New Look at the Zapruder Film," the 45-minute production is part of a trend of embellishing box-office successes with historical narrative, insider interviews and insights into the filmmaking process. It offers compelling interviews of Sitzman and others, courtesy of the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, as well as a documentary showing the Zapruder original being photographed at the National Archives, frame by frame, and turned back into a movie. Longtime students of the JFK assassination predict there will be charges of doctoring nonetheless, not to mention a new rush of hypothesizers seeing what they want to see. "This is going to be a can of worms," says Harold Weisberg, a longstanding critic of the Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, killed Kennedy from behind, firing from a sniper's nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. "There are people who think the film was doctored, that it was flown to the Soviet Union," Weisberg says. "The crazy people are going to get crazier, on both sides of the fence. Some people will look at the film and see things that aren't there. Others will look at it and not see what is there." Even so, he welcomes the public debut: "Let the people see it. Let them reach their own conclusions. I'm just sorry it's taken 35 years." One reason for that, as historian Richard B. Trask points out, was the revulsion Life magazine Publisher C.D. Jackson expressed on seeing the film after Life had bought the print rights from Zapruder for $50,000. Shocked by the thought of its morbid scenes being shown to the public before emotions had subsided, and determined to keep it from his competitors, he ordered purchase of all rights for another $100,000. Under the arrangement, made final on Nov. 25, 1963, the day of Kennedy's funeral, Zapruder was also to receive half of all gross receipts after Life had recouped its investment. Time Inc., in turn, agreed to treat the unique slice of history "with good taste and dignity." The first public showing of the film, as a result, took place in a New Orleans courtroom on Feb. 13, 1969, subpoenaed as part of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison's wildly unsuccessful prosecution of businessman Clay Shaw. But it eluded television until March 6, 1975, when Geraldo Rivera showed a bootleg copy on his ABC talk show, "Good Night America." Apparently unwilling to police its use, Time Inc. announced the next month that it would return the film and all commercial rights to it to the Zapruder family for $1. It has been kept at the National Archives in "courtesy storage" for the Zapruder family since 1978, following a tour of duty at the House Assassinations Committee. The family has charged fees for commercial use of the film. One researcher, Gerard Selby Jr., said he was quoted a price of $30,000 when he was a graduate student trying to make a documentary. Informed sources say revenues for the Zapruders since 1963 have totaled about $650,000. Zapruder family lawyer James Silverberg says high prices may sometimes have been set to discourage certain uses, such as on book and magazine covers. "We just wanted the film treated in a dignified manner," says Henry Zapruder, Abraham's son. "The money issue has always been secondary. We were never disappointed when people who expressed an interest in showing the film ended up not showing it." Congress set the stage for a public "taking" of the film in 1992 when it passed the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act calling for disclosure of virtually all of the government's files on the assassination and setting up a review board to track them down and make them public. Officials contend the broad terms of the law automatically made the Zapruder original U.S. property since it had been "made available for use" by the Warren Commission in 1964. In April 1997, the review board formally declared the film "an assassination record" and resolved to "do all in its power to ensure that the best available copy . . . shall become available to the public at the lowest reasonable price." But board members were vague on how that could be done so long as the Zapruder family retained the copyright in the name of its LMH Co. Executive director T. Jeremy Gunn said the board's action pertained only to "physical possession of the original." Anticipating complicated negotiations, the board postponed the actual takeover date until Aug. 1, 1998. The Zapruders had already decided to make a video of it. A specially commissioned photographic expert hired by LMH spent five days at the National Archives in mid-March 1997, making magnified 4-by-5-inch transparencies of each frame from the original, including images between the sprocket holes that no copy has ever captured. "This [inter-sprocket material] constitutes about 20 percent of the information recorded on the film," says historian David R. Wrone, author of a brief history of the Zapruder movie. Because the Warren Commission used a Secret Service copy for its investigation -- the original could not be stopped to inspect individual frames because of possible damage to the film -- "it necessarily eliminated the 20 percent marginal matter." Now that these images can be viewed, fresh debate is likely. Weisberg points, for instance, to the still photo of Frame 202, where another photographer, Philip L. Willis, can be seen, leg lifted, about to step into the street after Kennedy's open limousine has passed. Weisberg contends Willis is lowering his camera, having just taken a picture at the moment the first shot was fired, hitting Kennedy. That would be too soon for the Warren Commission, which concluded that Oswald couldn't have had a good bead on Kennedy until about Frame 210, when the limousine emerged from the cover of a large live oak tree. Unfortunately, it isn't easy to tell from the video whether Willis is lifting his camera or lowering it at Frame 202. Frame 203 is blurred. Willis told the Warren Commission he took one picture of the president "smiling and waving" to the crowd. He said he then "started down the street" when a gunshot "caused me to squeeze the camera shutter, and I got a picture of the president as he was hit with the first shot." A deer hunter and World War II veteran, Willis also said he "felt certain" that the three shots he heard came from the Book Depository. Those watching the frames starting with 313, when the fatal shot explodes, will be struck by the forceful, backward movement of Kennedy's head -- seemingly indicating a shot from the front and to the right of the motorcade. "I watched it the other night with 12 other people. Not one of us thought the shot came from behind," said Ali. "Not only does the head recoil. You can see the head open up from the front." Look again, says G. Robert Blakey, former chief counsel for the House Assassinations Committee. "If you look carefully, the first thing you see is the head moving forward, very briefly. That is the bullet hitting the head from the rear. Then there is the snap back, after the head explodes. The X-rays of the skull and the fragments we have all indicate he was not hit from the front right." Come Aug. 25, the video's projected release date, viewers can judge for themselves. To guard against charges of doctoring, a crew from MPI Home Video went to the Archives to film the filming of the individual frames, before they were digitized and put back into motion picture format. "We're partners," Ali said of his company's arrangement with LMH. "We both own it together." Henry Zapruder said he did not "anticipate a large amount of income" from the video release. But Ali seemed more optimistic. MPI is planning an initial production of 100,000 VHS cassettes and 20,000 DVDs. the Zapruder's settled with the Gov for 16 million dollars..b © Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Zapruder/091l-062698-idx.html Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.

Everytime I am directed to McAdams website by a Lone Nutter I just shake my head, its hard to believe how much BS McAdams crams into his website for all the LNers to drool over, I dislike his website so much, but no need to go on and on about it And Bernice I agree with you 100% that Paul will never debunk or even come close to doing anything that would make me rethink any of Jack's work, what he does not understand is that not only do I think of Jack as one of the best researchers on the case but who has put in more time researching then Jack? Not many now Dean we must be fair mcAdams is not the only who clutters up his L/NRS site many/birds of a feather..there..he is far from alone.....and some even still spew the old i sit on the fence so hopefully they can get along with all........ that fence was taken down and replaced many years ago.....Jack has put in more time than so many combined and taken so much from so many also....I have found it amazing at times that he would still bother to attempt to continue to bring us the truth of the coup and cover-up ..of the jfk..assassination..cheers...best b..