Miles Massicotte

Since this linked to Matt Douthitt's YouTube channel, could someone please tell Matt to respond to my comment about SMiLE on his Heroes and Villains reconstruction. It's my other document-centric hobby and I was floored to see another JFKA enthusiast share my passion for reconstructing the greatest album that never was. It's a conspiracy as vast and as far ranging as the JFKA Matt I promise I have stuff you need to see! I promised I would never post on this forum again but since it is for Brian Wilson, I have to 🤷‍♂️

I strongly feel that Sandy Larsen intentionally deleted my response to his post on Kevin Hofeling's "Why Pat Speer...." thread currently on the front page. I give him the benefit of the doubt that he "accidentally" deleted his own post, but I cannot see how my own post could have also been "accidentally" deleted. Sandy should know that there are many issues on which him and I most likely agree both politically and in regards to the JFK assassination. So this is not politcal or regarding matter of opinion. Anyone may go back and read this exchange between myself and Sandy, and I have saved screenshots of it for posterity if need be. I cannot prove my accusation but I hold it very strongly. I will no longer post on this forum where I feel at risk of having my speech deleted. I will not post here again, but since Jonathan raised this issue, I will raise my voice here now so that if anyone else in the future has a similar experience to mine, they will know they are not alone. Best wishes to all, and to this forum which I regret to not post at any more but still read adamantly.

Sandy I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your response was accidental, but unfortunately it means that my own response was deleted in the process, and now cannot be viewed by anyone including by myself. Should I wish to post something more substantive on this forum, I cannot do so in fear that it may be "accidentally" deleted, which to be seems to defeat the whole purpose of calling this a forum. I therefore resign this forum in protest. I do not wish for my account to be deleted so that what few posts I have made will be left up for posterity. I'll see some of you over at Jacks (and thanks Greg for the defense above, much appreciated).

"cherry picks the part that supports his belief and ignores the rest" Before I respond to this unfair comment, would you mind telling me what my belief is, since you seem to be aware of it?

I don't know, everyone can judge for themselves. To me, he rubs the back of his head with his thumb, but that is not where he is indicating. His whole gesture, the hand in that position resembling a circle, is where he is outlining the wound. The thumb running the back of the head is just a thumb rubbing the back of the head. Just my honest impression from watching the clip, others may disagree.

At 2:59:30 in the following podcast you can hear Doug Horne tell the story of Wilkinson and Whitehead seeing 1st generation frames (MPI transparencies) of the Z-film, and not seeing any "hole" or "black patch". Only "real looking hair and normal shadow" (3:01:20). https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-107-douglas-horne-on-the-zapruder-film-alteration-debate/ Horne of course implies a sinister explanation. When Wilkinson first viewed these transparencies in 2009 the so-called anomalies (black patch, etc.) were more prominent, but upon 2nd viewing were no longer present. The word "photoshopped" is used in the podcast. The alteration receives yet another alteration! A more simple and less paranoid solution is that there simply is no black patch. The 1st generation film reveals this. Wilkinson, Mantik, Horne, et al. were mistaken. I think this is much more reasonable to assume until proven otherwise. The black patch is hair and natural shadow.

A few things. On the one hand, it does not seem that granting immunity functioned the same as pleading the 5th in regards to the HSCA. From the HSCA final report: "The procedures of a congressional hearing also affected the committee's assessment of the risks and dangers inherent in its addressing all four issues it had tentatively identified. The procedures of a congressional hearing are fundamentally different than those in a judicial context. A few clear examples are sufficient to demonstrate the differences. First, there is no impartial judge presiding over the congressional proceeding. An objection that a committee member's question is impertinent is in fact ruled upon by the chairman of the committee. Second, a "target" in a congressional hearing may be compelled by a grant of immunity to testify despite his claim of the fifth amendment. In a trial, a defendant may not be compelled to take the stand and testify." (emphasis mine) So in other words immunity would not protect Mather from having to reveal information, it would simply protect him from being prosecuted for it. On the other hand, also from the HSCA: “The Commission itself failed to utilize the instruments of immunity from prosecution and prosecution for perjury with respect to witnesses whose veracity it doubted.” So, while I don't know how frequently they granted witnesses immunity for HSCA hearings, considering that they criticized the WC for this very thing it probably indicates that it was a tool they were willing to use and did indeed use, though how often I don't know. In any case, in some respects it is like pleading the 5th in that it is not fair to draw conclusions from it. But it is interesting given that Carl Mather is otherwise a very ordinary witness. Why seek immunity? Anyway it strikes me as curious.

Greg, A really interesting article, as always. It's funny how Carl Mather should in a certain sense have always been the most likely candidate for the person in the car, but was discounted. A recurring theme in the JFKA seems to be mixing up the colors of various important automobiles, does it not? In any case, unless there is some other provenance of the license plate number yet to be discovered, the fact that it links to a family who were personal friends with Tippet is too much of a coincidence to ignore. I also find the connection between Carl Mather, Collins Radio, and Oswald fascinating. Mather, as I have read in James Douglass's book, never spoke to the FBI, but did speak to the HSCA only under the condition of immunity from prosecution, which is interesting in and of itself, considering (according to Douglass) Collins Radio's history as a CIA contractor and Mather's personal electronics work on Air Force Two for LBJ. So, that you are able to draw a connection between Mather and Oswald at the Texas Theater seems to be inviting a certain can of worms to be opened. On the point of Mather resembling Oswald: just for fun I asked an AI to age up the picture of Mather in your article so it might match his age in 1963 a bit more closely. Here is the result, for fun, side by side with Oswald. I think it would be easy enough to mistake the two.

For what it is worth, 11/19/1963 is the same day JFK allegedly had this conversation with his secretary Evelyn Lincoln which I pasted below. Hopefully somebody knows about this photo, very interesting.... "You know, if I am reelected in '64," he said, "I am going to spend more and more time making government service an honorable career." He considered it absurd that in the Space Age someone who had become chairman of a congressional committee because of his longevity could tie up a bill and prevent it reaching the House floor for a vote. In his second term, he said, "I am going to advocate changing some of the outmoded rules and regulations in Congress, such as the seniority rule," adding, "To do this I will need as a running mate in '64 a man who believes as I do." As if thinking out loud, he continued, "I am going to Texas because I have made a commitment. I can't patch up those warring factions. This is for them to do, but I will go because I have told them I would. And it is too early to make an announcement about another running mate - that will perhaps wait until the convention." "Who is your choice of a running mate?" Lincoln asked. Staring straight ahead, he said without hesitation, "At this time I am thinking about Governor Terry Sanford of North Carolina. But it will not be Lyndon." Sanford was a logical choice. Kennedy was impressed with his economic and antipoverty programs, and he represented the enlightened "New South" that the President needed to court in 1964. Lincoln had not seen Johnson in the Oval Office for almost a month and had already suspected that the president was considering replacing him. Sanford would later say that although he and Kennedy had never discussed the vice presidency, he did not doubt that the conversation had occurred as Lincoln had reported it. He knew that the president had become exasperated with Johnson, but thought his comments might have been "one of those things that you say... just to get it off your chest." -found in JFK's Last Hundred Days by Thurston Clarke. Citation for this is Evelyn Lincoln's book My Twelve Years with JFK p. 203-206. Clarke notes that some authors have doubted this conversation's authenticity, but that it is corroborated by contemporaneous notes available in Box 6 in Lincoln's papers in the JFK library. Some of these are digitized but not the notes referenced so I am unable to confirm this independently. Nevertheless, I find it a bit of a coincidence worth noting given Micah's post. P.S.: I knew I recognized the name Similas from somewhere: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jfk-assassination-did-toronto-man-s-photo-show-2-shooters-1.2435610 It seems as though Norman Similas has passed away but his son is alive. Maybe he could be contacted?

For someone new to this like myself, I am on MFF nearly every day. I can't imagine how time consuming it would have been to labor through all the document releases over the years without it. I feel spoiled :) MFF is a godsend; thank you to those who make it possible.

Ben I tend to personally agree with you politically on a lot of matters, but what praytell is RFK Jr. realistic about in regards to this? RFK Jr. said just 10 days ago "The Palestinian people are arguably the most pampered people by international aid organisations." Northern Gaza has no functional hospitals left. What about this is realistic?

To your points: -The Z-film demonstrates forward motion of the head at the moment of impact. I am really not an expert in this and this always seems to open a can of worms on this forum about the head shot, but between z312 and 313 the head moves forward, as if struck from behind, before recoiling backwards. Even an alterationist like David Lifton noticed this (pointed out to him by Dr. Richard Feynman of all people) he comments on it here at 11:33 -As for the idea of that what we see in the extant Z-film is an artifact of alternation: i of course don't claim you argue this, and we agree it is silly. As I am commenting on general I don't feel like digging up a source here, but if you really require it then I will dig it up; I have seen it proposed right here on this forum. In any case, I don't feel that the back and to the left motion necessarily means a frontal shot upon closer examination, I think it could be, as Pat proposes, a tangential shot to the right temple from behind. But to the naked eye on a first impression I think nearly everybody thinks it looks like a frontal shot. -Like I said, I agree about the two briefing board events. The witnesses all line up on that. I think it is not unreasonable to think Brugioni's memory could and would be faulty about other details like the several frames of "white mist" for example. But it seems clear that two separate briefing board events did occur at NPIC. I just don't believe that they had anything to do with alteration. I think there must be another explanation, and I proposed one hypothesis. -My personal conclusion that the film was not altered rests on several points: 1) the existence of the original in-camera negative 2) the timeline; multiple copies of the film made immediately and not enough time for alteration before NPIC got the film 3) the film shows significant evidence of a conspiracy to kill the president 4) Zavada's analysis 5) I have seen many arguments for alteration and none of them convince me. Naturally there are dozens: the freeway sign, the capabilities of optical printing, the alleged limo stop, the missing turn, the people who don't turn to watch the president's motorcade, the blood being painted in, the boy that leaps out in one frame, Clint Hill running to leap on the car even though it is still moving....... on and on and on. To me, it is all so unconvincing. The burden of proof lies with those who make the claim that the film is altered, and all of the above that I listed is mired in speculation, what-ifs, contingencies. What I would love to see is the following: somebody take Zapruder's model camera, film a car from his position roughly the same speed (hell put a limo stop in there if you want), and make the proposed alterations using 1963 technology. That for me would at least go a long way to showing that alterations of the nature proposed are possible and would resemble the extant Z-film. I realize that will likely never happen though. 6) Motive for alteration. It is of course always cited as removing evidence of multiple shooters. Well, possible of course, but I think it is possible that they may have been setting up Oswald as proof of a communist conspiracy, as a justification for war with Cuba and/or the Soviet Union. This has to do with my own personal opinions about many things including Mexico City, the Walker incident, and of course Oswald's past. So I plan to justify this position in the future as part of a theory of JFK's death as a coup d'etat from various echelons of government, but at the moment I am not prepared to make that argument so I simply give this for now as my personal opinion.

So is the Warren Commission Report.

How do you explain the Alyea film?

It's from Baker's first day affidavit, the one where he also famously says the man he encountered was on the 3rd or 4th floor: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337201/m1/1/ Even though Baker refers to the man in question as 5'9", 165lbs, I believe this is likely what you are referring to.