Deconstructing Miles W. Mathis

Questions, speculations & updates on the techniques and nature of media fakery

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby Flabbergasted on August 31st, 2016, 5:09 pm

allancw » August 31st, 2016, 12:42 pm wrote:So over the last week or so I've learned that MM and CF are ops, no doubt.

Sorry to see you go. We will all miss your confusing posts. No doubt.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 620
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby simonshack on August 31st, 2016, 7:27 pm

allancw wrote:So over the last week or so I've learned that MM and CF are ops, no doubt. And I think I'm learning to separate the info from the misdirection in the quite amazing essays of MM. By doing this a lot can be learned.


Well, Allan dear, I do hope you've learned a lot - and so have I (as I always keep doing, year after year - in this darn 'truther business').

Those lame / idiotic sentences of yours (quoted above) have pretty much done it for me - thanks. So Cluesforum is, 'no doubt an op' ? Yeah, sure. -_-

In your last post, you forgot to mention / acknowledge / or comment on my friendly and courteous invite to my house in Frascati (in the southern hills of Rome), Italy. This fact alone shows what a rude, subhuman and soul-less entity that you are - i.e. a sorry clown wholly unable & unwilling to communicate in civil, well-mannered fashion. Much like your 'quite amazing truther-hero MM', in fact - who keeps responding rudely to anyone contacting him (it).

Sorry, dude - I have a precious few decades of real life left to live - and have no more time for pitiful Hollywood-payrolled clowns like yourself.

You American Hollywood/CIA/ military/ media spooks are a bunch of losers - as you are getting far too easy to detect - due to your piss-poor education.

Bye now, Allan boy. Say hi to your dog - who most assuredly will rebel one fine day - and bite off your grotty Pinocchio nose.

For curiosity's sake, I will let you reply to this post of mine - before disabling you (for VERY good reasons) from spamming your crap on this most virtuous forum.


********
Edit to add: It is quite amazing to see, year after year, just how many efforts are being deployed to try and discredit this minuscule grass-root forum (founded by yours truly and Hoi Polloi in 2009) - with a ZERO budget and with no allegiance /support / backing / or connection to ANYONE WHATSOEVER. . I find it quite amusing that our little forum is causing such a 'drain' of American taxpayers' monies - but, at the same time, wish to excuse me with all the American people for causing some of their hard-earned earnings being used to discredit Cluesforum! :P
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6343
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby Farcevalue on August 31st, 2016, 9:37 pm

allancw » August 31st, 2016, 11:42 am wrote:
I'm pretty sure JFK was assassinated that day. That essay may have been an important aspect of the MM op. Think about who it lets off the hook, plus the confusion and doubt it creates.



Sure he was, Mulder.

I suppose the hook is a reference to the legitimate unicorn government, or the innocent remnant thereof, that will rise up and bring the guilty to heel. Heaven knows it would be tragic to confuse the belated knights who would avenge Camelot.

And avenge they will just as soon as the bums are voted out and that blasted rabbit is thrown back into the briar patch.
Farcevalue
Member
 
Posts: 374
Joined: August 27th, 2011, 12:21 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby daddie_o on September 1st, 2016, 10:49 am

Reading this thread since Allan chimed in has been like watching a train wreck in slow motion. I don't have time or patience to go through and quote the text I'm replying to, but here are my thoughts on various topics in the last few pages of posts:

1. As has been mentioned, earlier in this thread Gopi vouched for Miles (met in person, befriended). But what seems to have been overlooked is that Simon vouched for Gopi (met in person, befriended). Since I'm more than 95% sure Simon is legit, that is enough for me to believe that Miles is both real and legit. I would assign a 95% probability in that belief. (I remember seeing somewhere a remark by the guy who started wikispooks saying that he likes to assign probabilities to his belief in conspiracy-related things, since the grounds are shifting all the time). I think 95% is about as certain as I can be about anything conspiracy-related.

2. About the issue of where all the disappeared people go. I don't think you really need a special enclave, although there most likely is one. Miles likes to point out that most people aren't good at recognizing people. They both don't pay enough attention and have poorly honed visual acuity. So hiding people away is hardly necessary. Changing the hair color is about all you need to do, and maybe for the most famous some minor plastic surgery. The Tate and OJ papers offer good examples of this. Most of the people weren't that famous to begin with. This would also explain the sightings of Elvis or Jim Morrison, etc. over the years. Though since those actually make it to the MSM, they are likely false reports meant to discredit those who do have real sightings.

3. For whatever reason, brianv seems to really dislike Miles. But as for pictures of him, there are plenty on his site. http://mileswmathis.com/pics3.html The pictures do not appear sim-like to me. And although brian quickly dismisses Gopi's "sighting" of Miles, he forgets or doesn't realize that Simon vouched for Gopi. Miles's bio and websites offer many opportunities to assess the 'reality' of his existence. To take one example, he says went to London in 1990 on the Basil Alkazzi award. And sure enough, the Alkazzi award site lists him as a recipient in 1989: http://basilhalkazziawardusa.com/. Proof? No, but I believe there is much more evidence suggesting that Miles is a real person than not. Whether he has been chosen as a mouthpiece for an intel committee is I guess another matter. But I think it would be preposterous in light of all the evidence to say he doesn't exist.

4. In response to Allan's claims. Allan has done a much better job of discrediting himself than I could. So kudos for that. I think you've made it abundantly clear that Miles made the right decision in declining your attendance at his conference. $400 isn't much to a man with principles. Your posts read like sour grapes (it's either that or deliberate cointelpro). As for your claim about 1500 words/day. You wrote that you counted his papers in the past year, which totaled 362,00 words. When you said that averaged out to about 1500 words/day, well it was clear you were either stupid or being deliberately dishonest. How does 362,000/365 magically become 1500? It's actually just under 1,000. I guess you didn't count weekends or something? Why not? Do you think Miles has any need to take the weekends off? If we view what he does as a passion project rather than a day job, then there's no reason to think that he takes any time off. He probably stays up late working on his papers when he's in the thick of something juicy. I know I did when I was working on the Gandhi paper he published on his site.

Anyway, I did my own word count, since you obviously can't be relied on (either due to incompetence or duplicity). I downloaded all of his papers from the last year, starting with his paper on 8/31/15 on John Reed. I did not download papers written by contributors. I did not download updates from papers that were published prior to that date. And when a paper published during the past year was updated, I only downloaded the updated version. I also downloaded papers from his science site that were published since 8/31/15. Papers published on both his art/conspiracy site and his science site were downloaded only once. I then uploaded the papers to the website http://wordy.com/word-count-tool. The numbers I get are different from yours:

Total new papers published since 8/31/15: 67, of which 8 were exclusive to his science site

Total words published since 8/31/15: 476,171, of which 31,764 were exclusive to his science site

So my word count is actually quite a bit larger than yours.

Now, 476,171 / 365 = 1,305. So about 1300 words per day.

1200 words in double spaced 12-point Time New Roman font is about 5 pages of text. So he's writing about 5 pages per day, on average. I agree that's a very fast pace requiring an enormous amount of dedication, energy and focus. But hardly impossible for one person.

Of course this is just an estimate. The word count might be a bit off. Another program I used seemed to come to a somewhat different count, but it was an evaluation copy and I couldn't count all the papers with it. But it wasn't too far off. I could also have added the word count for the updates he added to papers published before 8/31/15. But I don't think that would add to more than a couple thousand extra words. Also, I counted 365 days, but his last paper was published 8/22, so perhaps I should have counted 356 days instead (or 1337 words/day). In any case, these changes are relatively insignificant and do not affect the conclusion.

Now, I agree with you that the research for the papers can take a lot of time. But the 5 pages/day is an average. He could easily do 3 days of research then spend a day writing up a 6000 word paper (the average length of his papers, BTW, is 7107). As someone who pulled many all-nighters during college writing 15-page term papers from scratch, I can assure you this is definitely well within the realm of possibility. Also don't forget that most of his research appears to be through wikipedia and, more recently, genealogy websites. He appears to occasionally reads books and other background material, but I think it would actually be easy to overestimate the amount of time he spends actually doing the research. I know from my experience that it actually took me a hell of a lot of time to research and put together my Gandhi paper. But that's me. I looked through a lot of sources and was kind of learning as I go. I think I'm also a bit more meticulous and careful than Miles. I am also filled with self-doubt as a general rule, which tends to slow a person down. Miles does not suffer from that problem in the slightest. Actually just the opposite. I also have a full-time job, two kids and wife, so I wasn't able to devote much time to it on a daily basis, unlike Miles.

As for his art, I think it's a rather arbitrary assumption to assume that he spends 1/2 his time painting. From what I can tell, Miles is someone who follows his passion. In the 1980s and 1990s he was painting like mad. Then in the 2000s he got into science and wrote like crazy. His newest passion is the conspiracy stuff. And you can see that as he has written more on those topics, his science writing has tapered off considerably. It seems 2013 was a pivotal year for him in this respect, when he realized that Modern art was a CIA creation. I've never met the man in person, so I'm only drawing these conclusions based on his writing. I have no idea how much time he spends painting now, but I doubt it's very much. I believe he does teach art classes, though. And probably takes commissions for portraits, etc. But how often? I'm guessing not that frequently.

In short, I think your claim that it isn't humanly possible to have the kind of output that Miles has had simply doesn't hold up. It is very impressive, for sure, but hardly impossible. That someone is capable of being an accomplished artist (Hoi's objections notwithstanding), revolutionizing physics and unleashing such an enormous avalanche of conspiracy research is harder to believe. But I do believe it. I think Miles possesses a rare intelligence. In fact I would classify him as a genius. That doesn't mean he's right about everything. And of course his personality is a completely different issue and one which doesn't really have much relevance to the question of whether he is real and legit. I will say for the record that I completely disagree with his stance regarding Simon and CF. But I chalk that up to personality issues. Just because he's a genius doesn't mean he's infallible. I said earlier in this thread that he has come to very mistaken conclusions about me, so I know from personal experience that he is far from infallible. Ditto with his earlier Alex Jones admiration. I have also had numerous e-mail exchanges, and I agree that he can be extremely terse. But I just assume he's got better things to do than spend his time chatting with people he doesn't know via e-mail.

Anyway, I think I've spent enough of my own precious time and energy defending the man. If you want to tell me that makes it clear I'm a shill for TPTB, so be it. If you want to tell me your new anonymous friend has scientifically determined that I'm actually 6 different people writing this post, go for it. Hell, I might be wrong. But I'm 95% sure I'm not.

By the way, this post is a little over 1,700 words long. I started writing it and doing the research for it a little over 3 hours ago. Not too shabby.
daddie_o
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: April 30th, 2016, 11:21 am

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby brianv on September 1st, 2016, 12:46 pm

:angry:

brianv doesn't like Lame Shit Sim therefore Lame Shit Sim exists.

Don't go putting words in my mouth daddie_o, I can't dislike something I know nothing of, and I'd prefer if you retracted that statement. You know nothing about me or what I like and dislike.

What I do dislike is that the thread exists here on this forum. And it appears to be serving the shills well. And lame bio-pics on an even lamer website does nothing for me. Gopi? Oh yeah I remember him. :rolleyes:

I NEVER HEARD OF LAME SHIT SIM BEFORE IT WAS BROUGHT UP ON THIS SITE AND I DON'T WANT TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT LAME SHIT SIM. AND ON THE BASIS OF THAT WEBSITE ALONE, WHY WOULD ANYBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WANT ANYTHING TO DO WITH LAME SHIT SIM?

Got that? Good!
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3857
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby UNreal on September 1st, 2016, 1:27 pm

daddie_o » September 1st, 2016, 10:49 am wrote:Since I'm more than 95% sure Simon is legit, that is enough for me to believe that Miles is both real and legit. I would assign a 95% probability in that belief.

-
The above quote is an example of fallacious reasoning and poor mathematical skills. After witnessing "allancw" rising a storm out of a valid point (word-count), then reading your rebuttal and indirect confirmation of the very same argument, i'm quite convinced that producing 1825 pages of research* in one single year is an issue that is difficult to have alternative researchers believe. MM is also priding himself with being an accomplished artist and mathematician, so his writing must be considered only as a part-time endeavor.
-
There are two attendees to Miles Mathis latest conference that have showed in the comment section of the post "Black Frosting" on Fakeologist**. Their testimony also add to the queue of commentary that focus on establishing the person MM being as real as his outstanding output. It is all too familiar that a lot of noise is made in order to overlook what is really at the core of this debate, the validity of Miles Mathis research. There are many flaws in the MM files, and by establishing a cult-like acceptance of a true polymath genius, it is more likely his material will be consumed and accepted without the same criticism an average Joe would face.
-
*number extrapolated from "daddie_o" post (1200 words a day approximating 5pages of text/day)
**http://fakeologist.com/blog/2016/08/25/black-frosting
UNreal
Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 7:50 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby Seneca on September 1st, 2016, 2:26 pm

daddie_o » 01 Sep 2016, 11:49 wrote:4. In response to Allan's claims. Allan has done a much better job of discrediting himself than I could. So kudos for that. I think you've made it abundantly clear that Miles made the right decision in declining your attendance at his conference. $400 isn't much to a man with principles. Your posts read like sour grapes (it's either that or deliberate cointelpro). As for your claim about 1500 words/day. You wrote that you counted his papers in the past year, which totaled 362,00 words. When you said that averaged out to about 1500 words/day, well it was clear you were either stupid or being deliberately dishonest. How does 362,000/365 magically become 1500? It's actually just under 1,000. I guess you didn't count weekends or something? Why not? Do you think Miles has any need to take the weekends off? If we view what he does as a passion project rather than a day job, then there's no reason to think that he takes any time off. He probably stays up late working on his papers when he's in the thick of something juicy. I know I did when I was working on the Gandhi paper he published on his site.


I don't think Allan's calculation was as wrong as you say. I think he started counting from 1/1/2016, unlike you. So he didn't have to divide by 365 (or 366) but by the number of the day that he did his calculation. He made his post on August 27, which is day 240. And 362,000/240 is about 1508.
I had made the calculations mysef because I didn't trust his math ability, and first made the same 'mistake' as you.

Thanks for counting the words yourself. I agree with you that this is humanly possible and that we need other arguments to know if he is honest or not.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 420
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby brianv on September 1st, 2016, 4:29 pm

Quote UNreal "It is all too familiar that a lot of noise is made in order to overlook what is really at the core of this debate, the validity of Miles Mathis research"

I'd say, "It is all too familiar that a lot of noise is made in order to overlook what is really at the core of this debate, the validity of Miles Mathis' existence and why we should be discussing his "research" here if he doesn't exist.

daddie_o proved that there is a website, if you could call it that, with some images of a gimp. :lol:
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3857
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby allancw on September 1st, 2016, 5:24 pm

I was indeed going to bow out -- one thing I've learned is that NO ONE CHANGES THEIR MIND ABOUT ANYTHING. Basically true, not literally. But it's obvious that minds here are made up; the three people whom I had an effect on contacted me privately, and with them I was basically preaching to the choir.

What jumps out at you (since my word count post) is how virtually no one dealt with any of my observations until daddy_o, but of course even he cherry picked -- neither he nor anyone else mentioned the many 'tell's I brought up, even aside from the word count issue. (And as Seneca pointed out, daddy_o made a fool of himself in calling me either dishonest or stupid; I made it clear I was only counting 2016 and indeed my exact count was 1,508.)

My interest is more re Simon, who took the tack of Appeal to Ridicule to new heights and does not even pretend to deal with WHY I came to the conclusion that 'outraged' him. For example:

'This fact alone shows what a rude, subhuman and soul-less entity that you are - i.e. a sorry clown wholly unable & unwilling to communicate in civil, well-mannered fashion. Much like your 'quite amazing truther-hero MM', in fact - who keeps responding rudely to anyone contacting him (it).'

'Subhuman'? I point out misdirection and Simon's response is to ramp it up exponentially, with the most blatant ad hominem one can think of. More:

'Offended? No, Allan - just a tad confused & worried as to exactly how your brain functions nowadays. Why on Earth would you now "seriously entertain the notion that, like MM, CF is a psy op"? Is it because this forum's readership hasn't granted you a unanimous standing ovation for your 'groundbreaking discovery' that MM might be a disinfo clown / or cointelpro team?'

Shall we count the logical fallacies? Straw man (exaggerating my position), red herring, more appeal to ridicule, more ad hominem, and of course neglected aspect.

The concept I really like, though, is Simon's reference to my brain functions. Reminds me of Richard Grove's response to my James Corbett outing (google 'An Open Letter to James Corbett'). Grove likewise questioned my sanity: in pointing out that Corbett repeats 23 times the biggest 9/11 lie (at a truther conference) in 25 minutes and is therefore guilty of the worst sort of NLP. Grove's reasoning was 'James doesn't know what hit the Pentagon and neither do you.' He then questioned my sanity. This is from a guy who has posted 10 hour podcasts on the trivium and logical thinking.

At the risk of bombast, I'll quote a line from my last book, a memoir: 'You lie about someone, they get mad. You tell the truth, they get outraged.'

Simon claims I 'worship' MM or some such. What can I even say? I point out two MAJOR dishonesties in his JFK essay, inarguable stuff, i.e., his posting of those pics from a fiction film and (in his original posting) not revealing what they really are (until he was busted). And the Ruby-about-to-shoot-Oswald photo issue. There's something really important there -- aside from the proof that the MM who claims to be an expert at photo analysis did not write that passage -- and yet no one even comments on it. And from my research those two bits of dishonesty (in the JFK essay) are just the tip...

That I've been banned from here is interesting since in my banning Simon does not deal with, let alone refute, my main point about CF, which I'll repeat:

'Simon, just FYI, my conclusion about CF is partly based on Hoi's utterly blatant misdirection in his 'cousin' post. Sometimes one slip up will give it away. (Hoi being your number 2 man and all.) I mean plus all the other misdirection. Just too much misdirection. My two new friends both were surprised at the transparency of this and went out of their way to mention it, so if you're going to gaslight me on that, the two of them can consider themselves gaslit as well.'

I'm about done. To anyone who is really interested in getting to the truth of these matters (whatever they are), I can only suggest you go back and read this thread, at least from my word count post. Ask yourself if anyone dealt with any of my actual observations (be they right or wrong in your opinion). If it's all been misdirection/NLP, ask yourself what that means.
allancw
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: July 18th, 2011, 1:54 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby UNreal on September 1st, 2016, 9:23 pm

brianv » September 1st, 2016, 4:29 pm wrote:... and why we should be discussing his "research" here if he doesn't exist.

-
I’d say there is interest in both exposing controlled opposition as well as analysing their material which consists of part truths and part derailing. What is interesting about Mathis is that many of his papers actually are informative, although they seem to always concern older, inoffensive topics. A sorry fact is that the majority of conspiracy authors* actually are part of the culture creation apparatus and their agenda is to mislead the public sooner or later. In Miles Mathis case i take the target audience to be informed truthers** which explains why MM's material*** is often very well researched and accurate. The reason why we might come down harder on alternative researchers than how we treat the MSM could well be that these entities pretends to be part of our world and that we have an emotional tie to these operations garnered through our journey down the conspiracy lane. I for one read and enthused over MM's research before coming across elements (like his John Lennon paper) that made me cautious. Compulsive education could leave its trace even in our brain patterns in so far as we might still have an unconcious tendency to crave for authority figures to hand us answers and validation****. What better than an unsung, lonely genius for the role,,,
-
If we compare MM and the likes to mainstream media, the analysis should be the same from our part as skeptics. As the events in mainstream media are, and will continue to be, scrutinized by us and others, i see little reason to differentiate more elaborate* programming from the more mundane and predictable MSM. All this material is most probably elaborated in concert and by the same groups/think-tanks.
-
What is less appealing about the discussion on MM in this thread is more what i see as artificial intrigue and name calling. Then again, this further help to discern both the agenda and the people defending/elaborating it. It is kind of a live vivisection of an ongoing covert operation.
-
*do we even know of any author in the conspiracy field that actually can be said to be 100% authentic?
**CF is cutting edge in this regard
***I discard his art work that as unconvincing and average, and i have not the knowledge to scrutinize his physics forays (although i take quantum mechanics to be misleading/inaccurate)
***or just to act as a fellow soulmate or hand to hold
UNreal
Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 7:50 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby CluedIn on September 1st, 2016, 11:33 pm

I wasn't planning on commenting on this "topic", but allancw you just need to go away. You have insulted our host and come across to me as a spoiled child who had to resort to insulting CF members and readers because nobody responded to your post. Talk about Hoi misdirecting!

I've been floating around the internet long enough to make my own decisions about who is a shill, counter-intel, etc. We can never be 100% sure, but we are all adults and can come to our own conclusions. When somebody gets forceful and demanding and insulting like YOU, red flags begin to fly. If you are truly here to contribute and discuss, I find it pretty low class that you insult Simon and Hoi, and then LIE about how it all transpired:

"My interest is more re Simon, who took the tack of Appeal to Ridicule to new heights and does not even pretend to deal with WHY I came to the conclusion that 'outraged' him. For example:

'This fact alone shows what a rude, subhuman and soul-less entity that you are - i.e. a sorry clown wholly unable & unwilling to communicate in civil, well-mannered fashion. Much like your 'quite amazing truther-hero MM', in fact - who keeps responding rudely to anyone contacting him (it).'

'Subhuman'? I point out MISDIRECTION and Simon's response is to ramp it up exponentially, with the most blatant ad hominem one can think of.

So your quotes below are simply about misdirection:

Thanks for the thoughtful email. I think a few of the CF boys got into trouble for their dumb ass handling of my posts. Simon was the smartest by KEEPING HIS TRAP SHUT (more or less). Hoi's transparent misdirection was the true giveaway (I didn't consider it 'weird' at all, just a dead giveaway). I suspect they've all gotten the directive to SHUT UP and cut their losses.

The thing is, and this is the depressing part, whoever is running the op (I suspect one top guy is doing both MM and CF) is probably satisfied with how it turned out (if he cares at all): In the long run their goal is to muddy the waters, create confusion/fear and above all hopelessness. (Plus keep track of people and keep them busy 'investigating').

You can disagree with anyone here, but you've jumped the shark by getting nasty simply because nobody responded to your post in a timely manner. This is what sets CF apart from all the other forums, the ability of its members to converse without resorting to childish name calling and behavior. You may want to join GLP - probably will feel more in your element.
CluedIn
Member
 
Posts: 228
Joined: December 1st, 2015, 1:15 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby sharpstuff on September 2nd, 2016, 3:47 am

Question: Isn't this particular thread getting 'out-of-hand'?

Perhaps we should consider leaving it for a while. Like CluedIn, I haven't contributed to this 'discussion' since I have no particular interest in Miles Mathis as such. I read some of his works as I did Dave McGowan's.

As to the word-count issue, I fail to see the necessity for querying (arguing?) it. As a writer of a good number of books, essays, poetry and other stuff, it depends on how well you can type (words per minute) and how accurately. Output can be greater one day than the next, as well all know. Averaging out the number of words per day is not, in my opinion any relevance to whether it is possible or not.

Believe it or not, when I was in my teens, I wrote a book (by hand) consisting of 10,000 words in
3 days. I counted the words using a standard principle (of the era) thus:
Count the words in the first ten lines.
Divide the number of words by ten (= average number of words per line).
Multiply the average by the number of lines on a page.
Multiply the result by the number of pages.

I do not know how accurate this was. I would suggest that word-counts in software use different algorithms (but I do not know). Anyway, what does it prove?

It is sad for any thread to degenerate as I feel this one is doing.

Just my tuppence worth.
sharpstuff
Member
 
Posts: 78
Joined: February 4th, 2015, 2:31 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby simonshack on September 2nd, 2016, 11:58 am

Here's allancw's latest (final?) e-mail to yours truly :

Image

:rolleyes:
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6343
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby daddie_o on September 2nd, 2016, 12:35 pm

brianv: I retract my statement that you don't like MM. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that something about him ruffles your feathers. Or maybe you shout and swear all the time.

allan: I apologize for calling you stupid. Unnecessary and not to the point. And yes upon re-reading it was clear you were talking about 2016. My point about the output being well within the realm of possibility for a single person still stands.

Has it occurred to you that the reason nobody is answering your points is that people don't really care that much or don't really find your arguments compelling? You realize this isn't a high school debating match--we're not required to respond to everything. Or is it all about misdirection and NLP? You posted some reasons why you think MM is not legit on a website that MM says he has severed his ties and alliance with (which ties and alliance he never had), then you complain when nobody comes to his defense. I think the reaction from most people (including me at first) reading your post was to just shrug and move on with their lives.

As to your claim that nobody answered any of your other points about MM, well there you are once again deliberately misdirecting and being deceitful. Or at least, that's what you would say to another person. In this case I think you just overlooked it. You wrote (or at least I think it was you) that his short e-mails don't match his verbose writing style. I actually don't think his style is verbose, but his output is a lot. Anyway, I directly responded to that.

As to your claim about the JFK paper. When I first read the paper, I noticed that the picture wasn't JFK and thought 'oh lord he made a mistake here.' But then he didn't. I didn't find it misleading. I actually thought it was a good way of showing people how easy we can be fooled by fake imagery (for readers who were tricked by it). So that never irked me the way it seems to irk others. But now you produced evidence that his statement about the origins of that picture were not in the original version of the JFK paper. Well, I think he made a poor decision about that. But I went back to the comment you linked to and read the copy-paste of the e-mail correspondence between MM and the commenter. I think MM had a legitimate rationale for not initially making a note that the picture was from a movie rather than the event, namely that the images are 'out there' on the internet and often passed off as being from the event itself. I don't agree with that rationale, but I don't think he was dissembling in his response to the commenter. I think he just used poor judgement, and apparently he saw the error of this ways and added in the paragraph about it. So in my view it was an "honest mistake."

And as for the microphone shadow, I'm not convinced you're right, mainly because it's a bit difficult to say exactly what position the mic is in. If you look at the shadow cast by Jack Ruby, it goes behind him and to the right. Well the shadow is also behind the mic and to the right. The angle looks a little off, but it's hard to say for sure given that the location of the mic vis-a-vis the lights is hard to triangulate. But if it's off, it's only a little bit off. Maybe MM didn't answer you because he also didn't think you were right.

If you're right, then it's hard to say why someone would have added that in there. Your conclusion is that it is a sign that the clues pointing towards a hoax were placed deliberately for us to think the event was hoaxed when in fact it was real. In other words, you're saying the hoax is a hoax. I suppose it's possible, but I doubt it. If it was indeed pasted in, I would guess it's one of those little details they've added to troll us. They love trolling us.

Finally, you or somebody else brought up the issue of responding to e-mails with different subject lines. I, too, have received e-mail responses from Miles where the subject heading is from an earlier e-mail thread (although I usually do not change the subject of an ongoing thread, I do put a different subject heading for new e-mails about fresh topics). This only happened a couple of times. I don't why. I thought it might be because he went back to previous e-mails to re-read something and then just responded from whatever thread he was looking at. It's an interesting question though, and one I don't have an answer for. However, I don't find your answer particularly compelling. In other words, I don't really see why this would be a sign of a committee responding. Someone is either responding to a particular e-mail or not. It doesn't matter if there's a committee responding -- the e-mail they are responding to should have the same subject heading as the e-mail to which they are responding. I think my interpretation is at least equally plausible.

OK, I think I've responded to all your substantive points (such as they are). You might not be satisfied with my responses, but there they are. If I've missed some, feel free to reiterate and I will try to respond. As for all your accusations of misdirection and NLP and all that jazz, well, puh-lease. :rolleyes: It seems like you're pulling a lot of tricks out of the JTRIG handbook. In any case, I could easily level all the same accusations against you. But I won't, as that would be pointless. You've already discredited yourself.
daddie_o
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: April 30th, 2016, 11:21 am

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby brianv on September 2nd, 2016, 12:49 pm

simonshack » September 2nd, 2016, 11:58 am wrote:Here's allancw's latest (final?) e-mail to yours truly :

Image

:rolleyes:


Captain Zero no less.

@daddie_o Oh gawd gimme a break.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that something about him ruffles your feathers.


What part of - I don't know the first thing about Lame Sim Shit - don't you understand? That's about as far I got in your post.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3857
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Question of Fakery

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests