TRANSCRIPT OF AN INTERVIEW WITH MR. BRIAN MEE

CONCERNING THE FAMOUS BACKYARD RIFLE PHOTOGRAPHS

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.

Our meeting ran about 2 hours and 55 minutes, give or take a few minutes. 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 go beyond two and a half hours. Three or four of those non-recorded minutes resulted from the "Pause" button on the recorder not being released after the audio tape had been paused while we viewed a video segment. (At other times, however, the tape was left running while we watched 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 careful notes.

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.

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, as it appears in Jack White's video, 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 professional photographer and photo lab technician. He has worked in photography for 18 years. He has worked as photographer and photo lab technician for the U.S. Government for the last ten 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.

Mr. Mee asked me to make it clear that the views he expressed were his own, and that he was not speaking on behalf of any government agency.

----------------------- 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 why 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. . . .

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. . . .

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 line 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. . . .

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. 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 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 affect 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. 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.