Deconstructing Miles W. Mathis

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

Deconstructing Miles W. Mathis

Postby hoi.polloi on December 31st, 2014, 6:07 am

Miles W. Mathis seems to be someone who is interested in the truth that we are interested in, as ugly as we find it, and he imitates the character of someone who can boldly stand against authority. But does his truth authentically resemble the truth we are uncovering on CluesForum, or is he a subtle mockery of our position of authenticity and/or the study of fake science? Is he a creation meant to lure our interest and smear the basically acceptable character traits of the average "truth seeker" to create associations in the minds of the average person? Does he genuinely believe what he is saying? Perhaps he merely intends to be an unapproachable enigma, whether he was put up to it by someone or not. His desire for enemies and his "sharpening knives" analogy is all too reminiscent of the rambling attention-seeker Nico Haupt for my liking.

Our primary plea and wish for this site is to use it to expose the "Nutwork" or "omnimedia" (to expose the mainstream and alternative media spouting uniform lies about our world — their using of their big money, their power, their threats, their bribes, and their deliberate psychological manipulation) and to expose their attempts at mass deception. We seek to empower the average person with defense measures so well meaning people can protect themselves from the mass deceptions. I think we can even agree that most of us intend to promote the free expression of speech from the basis of a renewed study of the sciences once the mass deceptions of science are (hopefully) eradicated. Even if much of that free speech does not end up on our site, we hope to help people do their own research and create their own media based on the foundations of science and truth, which we help to discover and demystify.

Miles Mathis seems to serve a pseudo-intellectual opposite idea: art must not be controlled by the non-artist. The implication is that the deceptions are art, and that the artist must be protected from those incapable of making it. (Strangely or not, this argument would kind of work out to be a form of technofascism.)

This is a bit of a stretch if you consider bombing other countries, manipulating people's emotions negatively en masse and taking over sovereign governments, nations, tribes and peoples a worthy form and role of "art".

I do not intend to set up a straw man in case Miles Mathis would not, in fact, overtly represent the apologist viewpoint. However, the glaring presence of certain "hanging chads" or glaring absences of certain clarifications of his point implies he is either bait for us to invest our time or meant as a "grass" type infiltrator to the new slew of "conspiracy researchers" who would attack everything for the sake of attacking it, rather than taking slow, logical, reasoned approaches to the delicate situation revisionists find themselves in.

This article is my attempt to make a case for the following position: Miles Mathis may be a character either designed (or innocently born) to draw attention away from our hopes. His function, if one can call it that, is to touch upon the most controversial subjects and frighten, frustrate or dumbfound people away from these subjects by acting slightly superior to them (in regards to intellectual strength and charisma) while providing slightly inferior content to what might be uncovered (in regards to the truth).

Points about Mathis from his websites (mileswmathis.com and milesmathis.com) to consider:

  • He claims to be an amateur 'realist' painter, but his work resembles that of an art student, and he calls himself a new "Leonardo" despite his studio partner Van Rainy Hecht-Nielsen being a vastly superior painter — this works against him, but may attract certain "follower" personalities.
  • Is his piano music, cartooning, painting and (really bad poetry) writing a mockery of Simon's, CluesForum users' and Fakeologists' art talents? Is it a mockery of our artistic dabbling? Is his arrogance meant as a subtle insult to those who are not masters of their art form? Perhaps interest in the visual arts can be chalked up as a general quality of those interested in visual Psychological Operations. If not, one may argue that the people who 'created' the Miles Mathis personality are going on what they have studied. And many of us are artists in one way or another. Could it be a convincing cover?
  • He claims to admire Lewis Caroll and have had his own "Alice" (little girl) he uses as a model — perhaps this is only natural of an artist, but does it increase controversy? Does it point to the undeniable tendency of many artists to think unconventionally, by holding up something that makes many people uncomfortable? Why did he create and name his "society" after Alice's underage outings with Lewis Caroll?
  • He uses numerous pseudonyms, which in itself is not weird in this field of research — after all, he apparently writes reviews of his own book which is not much different from users of our forum taking CluesForum points to other forums or the subject of our thread "Getting The Word Out". The only problem is that he may be writing under multiple invented legal names rather than mere user names or handles — in roughly the same format, under his own book, on the same Amazon page, in the "third person" voice, while referring specifically to himself. Not the worst offense, I suppose, but odd.
  • In a biography from the site http://mmathis.fineartstudioonline.com (which claims to be as old as 2001 but which resembles a mockery of the fine art world with shite like this: http://faso.com/about/us ) it states that Mathis enrolled in LBJ School of Public Affairs. He apparently received a "full merit scholarship" and was given a class with Barbara Jordan.
  • Barbara Jordan was the first female Black Senator elected to Texas' Senate, and her name brings up a number of papers specifically about the handling of military exercises. The LBJ school is named after JFK's replacement after the assassination PsyOp.
  • He has written pieces on various proposed PsyOps, including some popular hits questioning artist Shepard Fairey, John Lennon (claiming he is the same person as Mark Staycer), the OJ Simpson trials, and others — all with some good points and some bad. A big problem is that while correctly identifying Dallas Goldbug's comparisons as fraudulent, Mathis himself seems to freely mix good and bad points, and writes at length about cases that are mildly but not very convincing.
  • Some of his science is laughable to scientists who follow him and use him for derision. His most infamous point (that I've gathered from looking at his existing online reputation) seems to be something about "Pi = 4", which is a bit of an innocuous (if somewhat Masonic) call for a complex time-space equation to accompany/replace the otherwise useful constant (3.14159... etc.) such that the number 4 can be used within his newly proposed equation to calculate circles. Why "square the circle" in such a way? Is this not a goal of the religiously "kooky" Masons?
  • He has apparently been around for a while, promoting his dull, flat looking paintings but only gained recent notoriety by changing from a focus on art and science to a focus on PsyOps.
  • He claims to admire Nietzschian nihilism, a perfect philosophy for running into a topic and wreaking havoc for "fun". It also happens to match the occultic belief in the mantra "do what thou wilt" regardless of consequences, something that may work as the general life philosophy of some while being somewhat useless to any collective search for scientific truth.

The (in my estimation) cool but slightly deluded web site "Thunderbolts.info", which posits and debates the promising Electric Universe Theory (if it could get its head out of NASA's ass), has a number of users on it calling out Mathis' most egregious (in their estimation) and plain wrong uses of scientific language. I found some of these critiques valid and healthy food for thought.

I think Mathis might be something like a wild-card "damage control" personality to create attractive but somewhat nonsensical (or sensible but useless) theories as a distraction from the "evidence creates the incentive for research" position of CluesForum. I think he may also be attempting to challenge the legitimacy of our critique by subtly taking the occasional anti-critique or apologist stance, or endorsing the most logical big names — e.g.; Chomsky.

I think we should expect this kind of character to soon populate revisionist, philosophical and scientific debates as a means of dominating these interesting subjects with personality cult and/or pseudo-celebrity intrigue.

This isn't to say interesting characters can't and don't come along once in a while to change the debate. But I believe something valuable about the "leaderless" state of this research may be lost should a know-it-all do-it-all braggart successfully bore the average reader into a familiar submission to idle chat. We could face a new and much needed logical approach to the mysteries of science, or we could face more scientific celebrity-ism. I hope the former gains on and overtakes the latter.

I hope that I am entirely wrong about Mathis by asking the tiring "Is he a shill?" question before he can even establish much of a foothold in the arena of truth, that he can see what he is doing wrong and change for the better. If I am not wrong, however, I hope that you will forgive my observations and understand why I say this kind of thing has become a familiar barrier to meaningful discoveries; and I hope you understand my wish for him to not pollute a much-needed sea change in science and media with his disingenuous intrigues and — quite possibly — shameless mockery of those genuinely in the pursuit of real knowledge about our world.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4811
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Postby simonshack on January 2nd, 2015, 7:49 pm

*

Hoi,

I've been reading a fair amount of Miles Mathis' material over time - and have often considered bringing up /linking to some of his most interesting writings. However, I eventually decided not to - preferring to 'wait and see' - so as to allow me more time to wrap my head around this seemingly brilliant / supersmart "all-round" researcher & skeptic.

Admittedly, I was at first pleased to see that he's aware of September Clues - and rates it as "probably the second best documentary to date on the subject of 911" - although his "first choice" is the movie "9/11 Mysteries" by the softspoken, 'new-agey' character Sophia Shafquat/ aka Smallstorm - whom I have long suspected of being but another 'cutting-edge' gatekeeper. Moreover, some other sites that Mathis links to - truly makes me raise my eyebrows, but I will only cite one of them to make my point:

"INFOWARS: Not the corporate media. I visit it every day."
http://mileswmathis.com/link.html

Quite frankly, for any thinking person - let alone a self-proclaimed 'new Leonardo Da Vinci' - to recommend Alex Jones in any way or form (as an alternative to the corporate media) raises a pretty huge, flapping red flag for me. And Miles visits INFOWARS every day, does he?... Wow.

But there's more, as I just found out today - and this has to do with Mathis' personal forays into the atomic bomb hoax - and his (timid) photographic analyses of the same (an effort which, of course, brings Mathis right into the Cluesforum sphere of research). See, in this PDF dated June 14, 2014, Mathis makes the case that "The Bikini Atoll Nuclear Tests were Faked". Sure, I think we can all agree with that - but I'd say that a casual reader of that PDF will come away with the impression that ONLY the alleged 1946 Bikini Atoll tests (code-named "Able" and "Baker") were faked... At one stage, Mathis actually asks the reader to watch (for comparison) excerpts of the infamous "Trinity and Beyond" movie (so as to make his point that 'nuke bomb' blasts generate very strong winds...)

Excerpt from the movie "TRINITY AND BEYOND":
Image

Now, any person equipped with a modicum of brain matter should instantly be able to realize (or at least SUSPECT / QUESTION) that the above film sequence - and indeed, the entire "Trinity and Beyond" movie, is nothing but a crass military propaganda flick (likely produced using scale models/ miniatures in a special fx movie studio). So why is Mathis even asking us to compare "the Bikini Atoll Nuke test" images with the ridiculously fake "Trinity and Beyond" imagery - as if the latter were more credible / authentic? Ok, so admittedly - and to his credit, Mathis DOES put forth the notion that ... perhaps, just perhaps...
So what does this faking indicate? I would say it indicates one of two things*: either the entire nuclear program has been faked to keep your ass under the desk, ducked and covered;


...but he then goes on as follows:

(...) or the nuclear program is real but our military didn't wish to cause this amount of real destruction on our lovely home planet Earth. Those who are familiar with the scruples of the military wouldn't bet on the second possibility, seeming to leave us with the first. However, the second possibility may have a variation: perhaps the military wasn't allowed to run these tests. That implies someone or something which has the power to disallow the military from doing things, which leads us into other problems. I will leave that problem unsolved for now, only giving you a pointer, (...)


Well, I will suspend my judgment of the Mathis character for now - and only lament that I would certainly expect (from someone like Mathis - who claims to be nothing short of a genius) to provide his readers with something a bit more substantial than mere "pointers" - as to what is arguably the most egregious & bombastic mass deception of our times: the Nuke Hoax.

Image
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6376
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Postby lux on January 2nd, 2015, 9:05 pm

My 2¢

I mostly liked Mathis' OJ article. I thought there were some bits that he ought to have left out but that's common with writers-without-editors. I especially liked his photo analysis comments. And his comment about the film "Capricorn One" was also brilliant, I think. I've wondered about that film and its purpose and I think Mathis summarized its likely intent quite well.

I haven't read much else of his. I see he has lots of scientific/mathematical writings including the pi=4 thing. I'm really not interested enough in those topics to wade through those articles at this point so I can't comment on them. The idea that the traditional concept of pi may be incorrect doesn't bother me though. To me it implies that circles are really squares. OK, I've entertained wilder ideas than that. Maybe circles really are squares. Some day I'll look it it more closely.

I don't care about his artistic tastes or abilities. It seems beside the point to me. I'm not much of a poet/painter/musician either.

I also don't care much about his view of himself. Anyone in this demented world who can see that we're being lied to on a monumental scale is a genius by definition so let him boast if he wants.

I know I've been wrong at times in the past but I doubt he's a shill. I think he has just not yet discovered how far the fakery goes.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Postby hoi.polloi on January 3rd, 2015, 1:15 am

Let us hope you are right. I am not sure, though I can agree many fine points are made in his works.

However, I just wrote an essay on a theory of researchers' relationship to their attitude toward others, which may be applied to this subject. I think one of the problems with our movement is the number of people that must declare themselves "above" others or something like it. I have tried to specifically outline the problem and how it may relate to the hierarchy of who we encounter in the most corrupt parts of our system. I hope you will read it and provide your thoughts, lux.

Here it is: viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1760
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4811
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Postby antipodean on January 3rd, 2015, 2:04 am

As I see it, if for what ever reason you have to draw a circle to a given circumference, you would have to divide the circumference by Pi (3.14) & divide by 2 to work out the radius.
Once the circle is squared, 4 could then be the equivalent tool to Pi.
antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 577
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 2:53 am

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Postby hoi.polloi on January 3rd, 2015, 2:59 am

antipodean wrote:As I see it, if for what ever reason you have to draw a circle to a given circumference, you would have to divide the circumference by Pi (3.14) & divide by 2 to work out the radius.
Once the circle is squared, 4 could then be the equivalent tool to Pi.


But that doesn't quite match the hyperbole that Pi should be thrown out altogether as a useless constant. :unsure:
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4811
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Postby antipodean on January 3rd, 2015, 3:26 am

Of course Hoi I agree 100%, you can't square the circle until it's been drawn.
antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 577
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 2:53 am

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Postby simonshack on January 3rd, 2015, 2:22 pm

lux wrote:I know I've been wrong at times in the past but I doubt he's a shill. I think he has just not yet discovered how far the fakery goes.


Having now read a few more, and more recent psyop-busting papers by Mathis (such as this Unabomber PDF) - I think you may well be right, dear Lux. After all, we have all bought into many psyops in the past - and are still going through this long learning curve - as to just how deep the fakery goes...

I like how he starts off his Unabomber article ...

Yes, I too bought this one for years. Until now, even. But my recent discoveries caused me to return to
this event for a fresh look. And Oh! how transparent it now seems.


...and how he observes that...
Without 911 and all the ridiculous failed psy-ops since then, I would never have looked twice at the
Unabomber or anything else, and neither would anyone else. I (probably) would have remained in my
1990's intellectual cocoon, right where they wanted me, and so would you.


...and how he concludes that:
The people destroying your world aren't Christians, Satanists or pagans. They have no connection to any gods of the Earth or Sky, good or bad. They are just shallow psychopaths, organisms whose innate functions have badly misfired. This is why Nature will be forced to wipe them out.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6376
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Postby lux on January 4th, 2015, 12:23 am

Thanks, Simon.

Hoi, I do think you're right about dubbing oneself a genius being a red flag. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I guess I just overlook it in this case because Mathis has made some intelligent points about media fakery and appears to have done some good research. Or, at least that's the way it seems.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Postby jumpy64 on April 16th, 2015, 10:05 am

Ciao,

I've written only a few posts here months ago, so I will introduce myself again by saying that I'm an Italian friend of Simon's from Rome, and I've spoken to HoiPolloi once last year through Skype from Simon's house (I'm not sure he will remember, though).

It's especially to the latter that I'm addressing this post, since he started this thread on Miles W. Mathis.

I've been reading Mathis' documents available online for the last week or so, and I find them very enlightening, on a par with the best things I've read here. Yes, as HoiPolloi, I get annoyed too sometimes by some of his posing as an all-knowing guy, and I don't agree with all his statements (especially those regarding science, especially because I'm not at a level to comprehend their true value). Yes, he can sound a bit arrogant at times, but he sounds pretty genuine too.

You were right, HoiPolloi, to point out as suspicious his endorsing of fishy big names like Chomsky, who even denies the 9/11 hoax. But I've just discovered that actually he doesn't endorse him at all. On the contrary, he points to him as the gatekeeper he is, calling him just that. He does this in a document called "What I finally understood" that I think is his most enlightening so far.

Here Mathis brilliantly describes how the world of "famous people" really works: they're all gatekeepers whose aim is to misdirect people who are searching for truth. Each one of this "celebrity gurus" does that at different levels, according to the "searcher for truth"'s level of comprehension of the system.

I strongly advice everyone to read the whole document directly at http://mileswmathis.com/guru.pdf

Here I just want to quote some passages in which Mathis argues the following point: "How do we know you aren't another posted guru [that's how he also calls the above mentioned gatekeepers], planted to misdirect us?". He does so, incidentally, by comparing himself to a famous shill like Lyndon LaRouche

"Well, I'm not famous, am I? I am not on TV, am I? I am not promoted by some studio or consortium or publisher or think-tank. No one is sending you here: if you got to these pages you got here on your own, probably by lucking out in a websearch. That is another difference between me and someone like LaRouche. Although most of the US articles about him over the years have been negative, they still wrote about him. You should find that curious in itself. Coverage is coverage, you know, positive or negative. As they say, all press is good press as long as they spell your name right. None of the articles on LaRouche over the years made any sense, because if LaRouche really were
what the articles were claiming—a crazy cultist out to defame America and England—why were they writing about him? Why would the mainstream give someone like that the publicity? Remember,LaRouche was right about some things, and one of the things he was right about was the CIA's total control of the press. We didn't need him to tell us that, since we got proof of it from the Senate
hearings in the late 1970's (see the Church Committee hearings). Well, given that, why would this controlled press want to publicize LaRouche at all? Why not just ignore him completely? That's what they do to people they really wish to bury, like me for instance.

"I don't even have a Wikipedia page. Go try to build a Wiki page for me, and see how long it lasts. By contrast, study LaRouche's Wikipedia page. Not only is it extremely long, it is not nearly as black as you might think it would be, given his professed stance against the mainstream. Normally, Wikipedia blackwashes people it doesn't like unmercifully. Although we see large parts of his page spun negative,
we see surprisingly large parts spun positive. You will say those parts were written by his acolytes, but that is to ignore how Wikipedia normally works. Normally, if you go on a page of someone the institutions hate, you will find a complete blackwash. If you try to add any positive remarks or correct the negative ones, your comments will be deleted immediately. But we don't see that with LaRouche.
That in itself is a sign I am right about him.

"I am not saying you should trust me. You shouldn't trust anyone, especially someone you haven't met in person. You should read everything closely and make a decision based on continuity and logic, not on trust.".

To me this last bit especially is pretty sound advice!

So although I don't know him personally, I tend to think that this guy deserves respect as a genuine researcher, even when we don't agree with some of his conclusions or speculations.
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Postby MrSinclair on April 17th, 2015, 4:09 am

I agree with your post Jumpy. I've read a great deal of Miles non-scientific essays and at the least they are provocative and entertaining but I think they go beyond that to some very useful analysis. For example I just competed the 80+ page Charles Manson essay and find much that rings true in it. It is a bold thing to declare it a fake but he makes the case well.
His analysis of modern art is excellent too particularly his points that the obscenely over inflated prices paid for modern pieces may in fact simply be a way to move money around in a veiled fashion.

His work should be of interest to most visitors to this forum.
MrSinclair
Member
 
Posts: 385
Joined: December 23rd, 2011, 2:29 am

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Postby Observer on April 17th, 2015, 8:33 am

Ciao Jumpy64,

Yes, according to this Miles W. Mathis character, he supposedly wrote in 2007:
(and supposedly published on the internet for the first time around "2008/2009")
(and then supposedly decided to re-release it onto his site on March 18th, 2015)
this article which boldly states that all of the JFK assassination "footage" was fake.
http://mileswmathis.com/updates.html http://mileswmathis.com/barindex2.pdf :)

The best visual analysis proof of the "parade assassination footage/photos" being fake is: on page 26 through page 34 of Miles' pdf. The pdf's undeniable visual evidence of "parade assassination footage" fakery should be added to the "Was J.F.K. murdered?" thread.
viewtopic.php?f=28&t=75
Observer
Member
 
Posts: 71
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 1:47 am

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Postby ProperGander on April 17th, 2015, 1:07 pm

I think Miles Mathis is on the right track but he comes to conclusions that don't seem supported by the evidence. I agree with him that we've been subjected to hoaxes all along. I just don't think things like John Lennon showing up in some esoteric Canadian film are correct. After reading his article, I spent a few days looking over his evidence and watching hours of John Lennon interview videos. I think it possible John Lennon himself was an act. The persona who did all those interviews was a work of fiction. Lennon was playing a part on TV. This prolific musician spent his time on the talk show circuit during the 1970's. Actors and musicians tend to fudge their biographies to begin with. They use stage names. They might lie about their ages. I think this might be true of John Lennon. I think he might have worn a wig. I think that's why the Mark Staycer guy looks so much like Lennon from certain angles. Its because John Lennon himself was little more than scripted lines and a wig with fake eyebrows. He was not very interested in touring. He had little interest in playing live as far as I can tell. And it also seems that the Beatles were the same kind of media creation as the Monkeys.
ProperGander
Member
 
Posts: 152
Joined: April 14th, 2015, 2:16 pm

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Postby ProperGander on April 20th, 2015, 8:16 am

Another thing about Mr. Lennon that I think might be worth considering is his age might not be what we were told. He could have been older. To appeal to a young audience, he might be presented as younger. I think Paul looks older than Ringo. Paul looks like he's around 80. Of course this is speculation and people age as they do. But considering that he's an entertainer, this is a possibility. If John Lennon had wanted to appear on film after faking his death, I think it would have been a bigger production. This might sound strange but towards the end of Eyes Wide Shut, Tom Cruise meets the old man who represents the elite at the gate. The gatekeeper. The gate had reminded of the Strawberry Fields gate. His nose and his ear seem to match a certain Beatle. Guy looks made up and the glasses and duck mouth make it hard to really see what he looks like. Of course this is absurd nonsense, but I figured I'd put it out there as a kind of observation. This I post more as a slight joke than anything else.
But hey, you never know.

Image
ProperGander
Member
 
Posts: 152
Joined: April 14th, 2015, 2:16 pm

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Postby jumpy64 on April 24th, 2015, 10:07 am

Ciao a tutti,

I just wanted to follow up to my last post by saying that I have contacted Miles Mathis through the email link available at his website. After congratulating with him for his most interesting papers (like those on the fake deaths of Lennon, Kennedy and Sharon Tate), I asked him to clarify his position on some essential topics, like VicSims, NASA fakery and flat earth theory (the latter especially in relation with Math Boylan's videos on YouTube, which I find both interesting and entertaining).

I must say I had to repeat my questions to get some answers from him, but in the end he did make the following statements, however concise:

- I think the victims of 911 were faked.
- Most of NASA is faked. No Moon Landing, no Mars Landing. I do think we have done planetary flybys though.
- Boylan is a mole. The Earth isn't flat.

He also renewed his appreciation for "September Clues" and for Simon and Cluesforum, and he understands if we're suspicious of him, because he's suspicious of everybody too. That's also the reason why he doesn't like to be interviewed much. He wrote to me: "I have turned down dozens of requests, including from the big guys in alternative media. I would do an interview with someone who I was sure wasn't trying to spin my material, but I don't know anyone like that".

He didn't strike me as a person who likes to write long emails to people he doesn't know, but that's understandable, I guess. All in all, he reinforced my feeling that he is a genuine researcher, and I'm glad I've contacted him.

As a footnote, I would be interested to know what you guys here think of Math Boylan's videos. OK, Mathis says he's a mole, and maybe he is, but I do find his comedy acts (when he pokes fun at NASA's "pictures") very effective. Also because he says that he worked for NASA as an hyper-realistic painter, and that he heard directly from some executives there that the Earth is flat and the joke is on us. He also raises reasonable suspicions on Antarctica and the level of military control there, so I still think he may be on to something...
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

Next

Return to The Question of Fakery

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests