SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW WITH MR. BRIAN MEE CONCERNING THE BACKYARD RIFLE PHOTOS Michael T. Griffith 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. Prior to the meeting, I supplied Mr. Mee with a 22-page extract from the file PHOTOS.ZIP, which contains the HSCA testimony of two members of the Committee's photographic panel, Calvin S. McCamy and Cecil W. Kirk, who testified in support of the alleged genuineness 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. Shortly thereafter, I prepared a summary of our discussion and posted it as a message to Paul Burke under the message title of "Backyard Photos." -------------------- Preliminary Comments -------------------- A few preliminary comments are in order before we proceed to the summary of my 16 August meeting with Mr. Mee. As I mentioned in an earlier message, a day or two after my initial meeting with Mr. Mee, I realized that I might have misstated or garbled some of his answers. My 16 August meeting with him confirmed that suspicion. In addition, I did not record the 8 August meeting but took notes instead. In the 8 August meeting, I showed Mr. Mee Jack White's video FAKE: THE FORGED PHOTO THAT FRAMED OSWALD. We did not stop the tape. We watched it all the way through. Then, once it was over, I asked him about some of the points made therein. Those who have read the summary of the 8 August meeting will notice that Mr. Mee's views on certain issues seem to have changed. It isn't so much that his views have changed as much as it is that I did not ask the right questions, and, in some cases, I wasn't specific enough or simply misunderstood his answer. It must be remembered, also, that Mr. Mee was responding to questions on issues and claims that he had just been exposed to in the preceding hour. 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. And we also, of course, discussed in considerable detail the 22-page extract from Kirk and McCamy's testimony. 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 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 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 that came 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 White's video uses copies of good quality reproductions of the backyard photos that White 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 White's video to allow for extended viewing of each picture without the slight shaking that accompanies frame-frozen shots. 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 good quality copy 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 we had to study 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 133-B negative. 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. It should be observed that there was one minor misunderstanding regarding Mr. Mee's qualifications. In an earlier message, I stated that he had taken courses at the KODAK branch of the Rochester Institute in New York. The institution in question was actually the KODAK School of Photography in Rochester, New York, which sometimes works with the Rochester Institute of Technology. It will probably take me two to four weeks to transcribe the audio recording of my meeting with Mr. Mee. Once I have done so, I will upload the transcript as a text file to the Books and Articles section of the Library. Mr. Mee stated that the opinions he expressed were his own, and that he was not speaking in behalf of any government agency. ------------------------ 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 technician for 10 years. 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, Winona, Wisconsin, 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. I should mention that the above paragraph does not detail all of Mr. Mee's training and experience. He has other qualifications in the general area of photography, but he felt it would be best to cite only that part of his background that was in some way relevant to the subject at hand, and I agreed with him. ------------------------------------------------ Summary of Mr. Mee's Statements and Observations ------------------------------------------------ * Mr. Mee stated that he did not believe a skilled forger would have used either of the methods outlined by Jack White for producing the frame edge markings and camera scratches. He said these markings and scratches could have been made in the ways described by White, but that he doubted that a good forger would have employed either method. Mr. Mee outlined an alternative method by which the edge markings and scratches could have been created. Essentially, he described a multi-generation process in which the first photos were taken with a very high-quality camera. Rather than risk garbling Mr. Mee's explanation or quoting the whole thing at this time, I would refer the reader to the transcript of our interview when it is uploaded.* * On the issue of Jack White's work, Mr. Mee said that overall it was pretty good. He stated that in his opinion White had made some errors, but that White was correct on a number of important points. * Mr. Mee disputed the relevancy of the panel's vanishing point analysis. He said he understood what McCamy had said about it, but that he did not feel that it was a valid explanation of the conflicting shadows. Mr. Mee's position was that vanishing point analysis was no substitute for a direct study of the conflicting shadow angles themselves. * On the issue of digital image processing, Mr. Mee said he did not believe that this form of analysis could provide a definitive answer on the authenticity of the photos. Mr. Mee observed that during the period in question, i.e., the early 60s, there was pretty much one way of making film, and that if a forger had taken care to match the film speeds, it would be difficult, even with today's technology, to make a definite determination about the photos based solely on digital image processing. Mr. Mee further stated that he especially did not think that the digital image scanning technology available in the late 1970s would have been able to detect sufficient variations in the grain pattern and structure to justify a judgment of authenticity. He added that even if it could have, this still would not be conclusive proof of authenticity given the nearly uniform way of making film in the 60s and assuming that the forger matched the film speeds. * I showed Mr. Mee a picture of the panel's grain structure analysis of Oswald's face. This picture appears on the sixth page of photos in Gerald Posner's book CASE CLOSED. On the left side of the picture is the left half of Oswald's face; on the right side of the photo is the grain structure of that half of the face. The picture is divided into four squares, so that the upper and lower parts of the left side of Oswald's face, and their corresponding grain structures, are divided by a white line. Mr. Mee examined this photograph and stated that he felt he could see some variation in the grain pattern. He hastened to add, though, that this was strictly a naked-eye judgment on his part, that it was purely tentative, and that he would have to examine the original materials under a high- powered microscope before reaching a firm conclusion on the matter. He observed that such an examination would allow him to study the grain's structure as well as its pattern. He went on to say that he would not expect to find a whole lot of variation anyway, given the nearly uniform way that film was made in the 60s, and that such an analysis could not provide a definitive judgment on the genuineness of the backyard pictures. * Mr. Mee was skeptical of the suggestion that water spots caused the line that runs from one side of Oswald's neck, across his chin, to the other side of the neck. He also questioned McCamy's explanation of why there were no water spots on 133-B. For the reasons for Mr. Mee's skepticism, I would refer the reader to the transcript of our meeting when it is uploaded. * Mr. Mee tentatively agreed with McCamy's varying exposure analysis. He cautioned, however, that he could not tell exactly which shadows McCamy was discussing. He also said that he would need to examine the original materials before reaching a firm conclusion on this matter. * Mr. Mee stated that the ability to view the backyard photos stereoscopically did not prove that the pictures were genuine. He said he firmly rejected this as an absolute authenticating criterion. For Mr. Mee's elaboration on this point, I would refer the reader to the transcript of our meeting when it is uploaded. * Mr. Mee maintained that the panel's own photogrammetical measurements indicated fakery in the backyard photos. He noted that the panel admitted that it found only "very small" variations in photogrammetical measurements of distances between objects in the backyard. Mr. Mee said that given the manner in which the photos were reportedly taken, by an amateur at that, it was highly unlikely that the camera would have remained almost in the exact same position for each picture. He observed that there should have been much more variation in the measured distances if the pictures were taken the way Marina Oswald said they were. Mr. Mee had more to say on this point, and for those additional comments I would refer the reader to the transcript of our meeting. * Mr. Mee was extremely skeptical of the relevancy and validity of the reenactment of the variant nose shadow cited by McCamy. This was the closest that Mr. Mee came to summarily dismissing any of Kirk and McCamy's claims. Mr. Mee was genuinely surprised that McCamy would offer that reenactment even as a theoretical model to explain the variant nose shadow. One reason that Mr. Mee was so skeptical of the reenactment was that, as McCamy himself noted, the subject's head was tilted and rotated so that the subject was "no longer looking at the camera," and that, with the head in this irrelevant position, the camera was then shifted to bring "the image back to looking about, as it did at first." I think it is no overstatement to say that Mr. Mee was literally incredulous that a reenactment involving such a manipulated and irrelevant positioning of the head would be cited even as a possible explanation of the variant nose shadow. * Mr. Mee disagreed with the panel's explanation of the unnatural indentation in the post to the right of Oswald's head in 133-B. Mr. Mee said that the sun was not in the right position for a tree branch or leaf to cause the shadow making the indentation, and he said this did not, in any event, explain the unnatural bulge in Oswald's neck seen in 133-A. He noted, in agreement with Jack White, that the neck bulge in 133-A was parallel to the post indentation in 133-B. Mr. Mee had a few other things to say on this point, and I would refer the interested reader to the transcript of our meeting when it is available. * With regard to the apparently awkward stance of the figure in the backyard photos, Mr. Mee said that while indeed it was a rather odd stance, he did not agree with Jack White's conclusion that this was clear evidence of fakery. Mr. Mee said the seemingly unnatural stance(s) could have been due to other factors. * Mr. Mee also disagreed with Jack White's conclusion about the head shadow in 133-C, which shadow runs up onto the fence. Mr. Mee said this was not necessarily evidence of fakery. He stated that a slight tilt in upper body position could have caused the apparent shift in the head shadow's position. * Mr. Mee said he did not view the change from a slight smile to a slight frown as automatic evidence of retouching. He stated that either expression could in fact have been created by retouching, but that two pictures of Oswald's head might have been used instead. He said he was inclined to agree, at least in part, with McCamy about the implications of the change in expression and the difference in the eyes. Mr. Mee said that this indicated to him that two slightly different pictures of Oswald's head were used. He added, though, that the eye variations could have been accomplished by retouching as well. * Mr. Mee said the body shadows in the pictures were not consistent with each other, and that the body was photographed at different times of day. * Mr. Mee, in agreement with Jack White, noted that the patch of sunlight on the side of the house behind and to the left of the post holding the stairway did not change shape in 133-A and B, indicating that the camera did not change positions horizontally, which in turn indicated a sameness of background. Mr. Mee said he could not comment on White's other examples of non-movement of shadows in the background of the photos without looking at better copies or at the originals themselves. * Mr. Mee took issue with White's view of the blurriness of the right-hand fingers in 133-A. Mr. Mee said this could easily have been caused by a slight movement of the fingers. He added that he did not see why a forger would have needed to retouch this area. Therefore, he said, he did not agree with White's opinion that the blurriness of the fingers was possible evidence of sloppy retouching. * Mr. Mee was quite insistent that the nose and eye shadows were in marked conflict with the body shadows and also with the shadows on the neck. For the sake of context here, let us briefly review these discrepancies: The nose and eye shadows fall straight down. In fact, the nose shadow forms a nearly perfect V-shape as it falls straight down. The position of the nose and eye shadows indicates that the sun was directly above and slightly in front of the head. In other words, the nose and eye shadows were caused by the sun at around noon time. Yet, the body shadows fall at a ten o'clock angle in 133-A and C, indicating that the body in these snapshots was photographed much later in the day, at around 4:00 or 4:30. Furthermore, the nose shadow remains the same in all the pictures, even though the head is tilted in at least one of the them. This is a photographic impossibility. Additionally, since the nose and eye shadows fall straight down and hence indicate a sun directly above, both sides of the neck should be in shadow. However, although the right side of neck is almost totally in shadow, only about half of the left side of the neck is in shadow. Said Mr. Mee, "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." * Mr. Mee rejected McCamy's theory that the end of the figure's chin in the backyard photos vanished in shadow. Mr. Mee saw a serious conflict between the chin in the backyard pictures and Oswald's chin as seen in other photographs of him. Mr. Mee had other things to say on this point, and I would refer the interested reader to the transcript of our meeting when it's posted. * Mr. Mee was quite surprised at McCamy's statement that he concluded that Mr. Scott's photo was fake when he detected a discrepancy between the shadows on the suit and the shadows on the railing. Said Mr. Mee, "McCamy was saying the same thing about Scott's photo that others have said about the backyard pictures. He was not consistent." -------------- Final Comments -------------- In previous messages, I mentioned that Mr. Mee was about to move. He left yesterday, Friday, 19 August. He has been transferred back to the Washington, D.C., area. Just before he departed, he said he would like to examine the original backyard photos and the negative at the National Archives, and that he would try to do so after he was settled in from the move. This summary of my 16 August meeting with Mr. Mee does not address everything that was said or discussed. I would definitely suggest that the interested reader examine the transcript of our meeting once it's uploaded. Michael T. Griffith ----------------------------------------------------------- * In the first version of this summary, I stated that Mr. Mee's theory on how the frame edge markings and scratches could have been created on the backyard photos involved running the film across the IR camera's film plane aperture without making an exposure. In the course of transcribing our interview, I realized that this was not his position. Mr. Mee did mention this as a way by which the markings could have been made on the photos, but then he went on to indicate that he did not think this was how the markings had been produced.