Deconstructing Miles W. Mathis

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

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby daddie_o on July 1st, 2016, 12:43 pm

Feel like chiming in here. I don't really understand the flak that Miles gets. I think he's legit. In other words, I don't think he's controlled opposition. That doesn't mean he's right about everything, but on balance I'd say he's more often right than he is wrong, and he has definitely pulled the curtains back on many, many hoaxed events (and other things). I don't know of anyone who has hit so many events with such force.

It's interesting to read the criticism here. First he isn't paying enough attention to the Jews and the Zionists, then he is paying too much attention to the Jews. From what I can tell, Miles is coming at this slowly, based on his own research. I think his assumption is that everything in the conspiracy literature is misdirection and disinformation. I think that's a wise assumption to make. I don't know how much other stuff he has read. But to start criticizing him (esp. his earlier work) by asking why he is ignoring the Jewish/Zionist angle, is to simply not understand his method and mindset. He's not going to start talking about that stuff until he discovers it on his own (more or less). And early on it was not something that he had discovered. But then he did discover that many (maybe most) of the people involved in the events he was uncovering are/were Jewish. Moreover, many of them were hiding their Jewish ancestry (so-called 'crypto Jews.') So I think for him now, if you're Jewish and wealthy -- and especially if you are hiding your wealth or Jewish ancestry -- he views that as a huge red flag. And I think he's right about that. You really have to read his work in chronological order to see the evolution of his discoveries and viewpoints.

Having said that, I agree that sometimes his focus on proving whether someone is Jewish or not seems a bit ... overboard. But I actually don't think it comes from a place of anti-semitism. Not at all. Hell, he posted my paper on Ghandi, and he knows who I am and that I'm Jewish. The truth (as he sees it) is what's important to him. His current preoccupation with who is Jewish or not is based on his realizations and discoveries, and he is being true to what he thinks matters. I'm working on a new piece now that I hope he will publish (and that I will also post here), and I will have more to say on this issue as it also touches on the issue of manufactured anti-semitism vs. legitimate criticism of the behavior of elite Jewish bankers and industrialists. (It's going to be a good one.)

I know from my own experience that he doesn't always get things right. He is certainly not alone in that respect. I don't expect that of anyone, especially when we're dealing with so many murky subjects. But regardless of my view or other people's opinions or whether or not they think he focuses too much or too little on Jews or Zionists or whatever is of absolutely no relevance to him. That's what I appreciate about Miles: he is not afraid to pursue what he thinks is true, regardless of the consequences. Actually, having now written this post, I think this is exactly why he gets so much flak, because his views don't really fit into any pre-conceived conspiracy viewpoints.


On a final note, I will say that I think his science work is amazing. I appreciated his conspiracy stuff and his art, but only when I read his science stuff did I come to think of him as a genius. I think his work holds the power to help us unlock the secrets of so-called cold fusion or 'free energy.' But that's a topic for another post...
daddie_o
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: April 30th, 2016, 11:21 am

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby Flabbergasted on July 1st, 2016, 3:57 pm

daddie_o wrote:You really have to read his work in chronological order to see the evolution of his discoveries and viewpoints.

I admit I have read very little of Miles´ work so far, so I can´t evaluate it with any fairness, but I like your point about "the evolution of discoveries and viewpoints". Some thinkers like Miles, who are capable of processing monstrous amounts of information in one week (Brazilian philosopher O. de Carvalho is another good example), practice real-time sharing, not of the ripe fruits of their lifetime labors, but of the very process of discovery and learning ... the thing in the making, so to speak. It takes courage to do so, and the trajectory of the thinker´s discoveries and theories will be there, etched in his writings, for everyone to see, with all its discrepancies and one-eighties.

If you read in chronological order, you can usually also detect trends and predict which direction the writer´s thinking is going to take in the next couple of years. If it doesn´t look attractive to you, it´s a sign you have exhausted the possibilities of learning from that source, whether the limitation is yours or the writer´s.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 630
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby ICfreely on July 10th, 2016, 9:21 am

Prescient wrote:They see themselves as "Gods" - so why would they believe in higher powers? This will, of course, be their downfall.


I agree, Prescient! Their philosophical foundation is weak like clock radio speakers!


Spiritual Authority & Temporal Power - Alain de Benoist


Translated by Jon Graham

Like the Pole star, knowledge represents a fixed point in the midst of movement. It corresponds to Aristotle’s “unmoved mover.” It is transcendence opposed not so much to immanence as to contingency and change. “Change,” Guénon underscores, “would be impossible were there no principle from which it proceeds and which, by virtue of the fact that it is its principle, can not be under its control.” Knowledge therefore has no need of action to attain possession of the principles, in other words, the truth, whereas action would be meaningless unless it is deployed as a result of principles that are necessarily external to it (if they were not and thus subject to contingencies, they would vary ceaselessly and no longer be principles). In other words, knowledge dominates action, because it provides action its law. And by the same token, temporal power, being completely subject to the vicissitudes of the contingent, can only be subordinate to spiritual authority, founded on the knowledge of the principles, that authority which in return confers upon it a legitimacy stemming from its conformity to the principles that reflect the “order of things.”

The reversal of the relationship between knowledge and action, as is expressed mainly in all forms of activist volunteerism or “Prometheanism,” or even in the belief that ideas are the reflection of socio-historical practices and not the other way round, is thus regarded by traditionalist thought as a complete aberration. This aberration is similar to “the usurpation of supremacy by temporal power,” when it claims to emancipate itself from spiritual authority by declaring that there is no domain higher than its own. In so doing, temporal power unknowingly saps the foundations of its own potency. As it is incapable of finding a legitimizing principle in itself, it merely provides the example of an attitude of revolt that by contagion will inevitably lead, step by step, to its own downfall.

In the following stage, the temporal does not even claim to impose itself on the spiritual, but radically separates from it and even denies its very existence. The systematic dispossession of the higher by the lower, triggers a process that will lead ever lower. The lower castes get the upper hand over the Kshatriyas; economic activity trumps political authority; and personal advantages and profits prevail over the common good. The reign of bourgeois capitalism therefore corresponds to the era of the Vaishyas and that of Bolshevism to the era of the Shudras. In parallel to this, the initial usurpation brings about the process of social atomization that leads into modern individualism.

http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/11/spiritual-authority-and-temporal-power/


SACRED RO YALTY From the Pharaoh to the Most Christian King - Jean Hani

Translated by Gustavo Polit

The theory of the majority of ethnologists is weighed down with two errors: materialism and evolutionism. The first prevents them from acknowledging the truth and the nature of magical operations (as well as those of religion, let it be said in passing); the second, which moreover is related to the first, makes them put forth as a principle, as an indisputable dogma, that men were savages to begin with, that they lived in hordes like animals—for humanity, according to them, descends from the apes—hordes in the midst of which, they assume strong men gradually began to appear, who imposed themselves by violence. This point of view, however, has been severely criticized by an ethnologist who has not allowed himself to become penetrated by the aforementioned philosophical double error. “The power of the ruler,” writes Servier, “is a cultural fact which varies from one civilisation to another…. It is absurd to wish to view this as the necessary stage, after the horde, of all social evolution…. It is vain to seek, in any civilisation whatsoever, the traces of an evolution of social structures going from the family to the clan, then to the city, to the nation and to empires. In humanity we find human groups which are perfectly organised and generally endowed with complex structures that are impossible to class and distribute over the length of an evolutionary scale.”4

http://themathesontrust.org/publications-files/MTexcerpt-Royalty.pdf
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby Flabbergasted on July 10th, 2016, 4:29 pm

ICfreely wrote:[temporal power] claims to emancipate itself from spiritual authority by declaring that there is no domain higher than its own. In so doing, temporal power unknowingly saps the foundations of its own potency. As it is incapable of finding a legitimizing principle in itself, it merely provides the example of an attitude of revolt that by contagion will inevitably lead, step by step, to its own downfall.
...
In the following stage, the temporal does not even claim to impose itself on the spiritual, but radically separates from it and even denies its very existence. The systematic dispossession of the higher by the lower triggers a process that will lead ever lower. The lower castes get the upper hand over the Kshatriyas; economic activity trumps political authority; and personal advantages and profits prevail over the common good. The reign of bourgeois capitalism therefore corresponds to the era of the Vaishyas and that of Bolshevism to the era of the Shudras. In parallel to this, the initial usurpation brings about the process of atomization that leads into modern individualism. (Alain de Benoist)

Brilliant, no less!
And that´s why we must be extremely careful not to be seduced by Marxist historicism and egalitarianism, despite their claim to "rescue the underprivileged".

ICfreely wrote:[they] put forth as a principle, as an indisputable dogma, that men were savages to begin with, that they lived in hordes like animals—for humanity, according to them, descends from the apes—hordes in the midst of which, they assume strong men gradually began to appear, who imposed themselves by violence.
[...]
It is vain to seek, in any civilisation whatsoever, the traces of an evolution of social structures going from the family to the clan, then to the city, to the nation and to empires. In humanity we find human groups which are perfectly organised and generally endowed with complex structures that are impossible to class and distribute over the length of an evolutionary scale. (Jean Hani)

Hear, hear!
It´s true, there is no archeological or cultural evidence of a gradual or linear evolution of civilization. The only case of "linear progress" is that of modern technology with all its ramifications, and it had to manifest in the only civilization ever not to spring from traditional, spiritual principles.

The source of all sources regarding the relation between spiritual authority and temporal power:
https://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Author ... 367&sr=1-1
https://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Author ... 311&sr=1-1
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 630
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

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

Postby nonhocapito on July 10th, 2016, 7:48 pm

Observer wrote: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


I'm reading this thread for the first time. Until a few minutes ago, I had no idea this Mathis guy even existed, except for reading repeatedly his name among the titles in the "Active topics" on this forum, happily never clicking on it. I haven't read every post on this thread, actually. Anyway I would like to just quickly point something out from the JFK "essay" mentioned by Observer in his post.

By comparing these two pictures, Mathis makes the point that the first one is fake, by looking at the seat pattern.

2016-07-10 23_40_49-News and info.jpg


And same goes for this other picture, where the car is missing the rear view mirrors:

2016-07-10 23_42_27-News and info.jpg



Now, it took me three minutes on google to find out that these pictures look fake for a reason: they're all from a notorious 1970 re-enactment of the JFK assassination.

I will give a look at the other "essays", but as a first bite, it doesn't taste too good. <_<

I can also say that I am not at all surprised that Mathis declined to join the forum. Just look at the format of his website. "Essays" and "Papers" (uhm, essays hardly ever start paragraphs with "I noticed immediately that..", but whatever) in PDF format. This is the literate equivalent of youtube videos. No way to argue, correct, revise, object. Things have only one, final form, no questions asked.
Someone who decides to publish like this simply cannot be a fan of a forum.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

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

Postby simonshack on July 10th, 2016, 8:54 pm

nonhocapito wrote:Now, it took me three minutes on google to find out that these pictures look fake for a reason: they're all from a notorious 1970 re-enactment of the JFK assassination.
I will give a look at the other "essays", but as a first bite, it doesn't taste too good. <_<


Sorry, nonho - but now YOU are being sloppy...

Here's what Miles Mathis immediately points out just under the above "JFK shooting images" posted on his site:

Miles Mathis wrote:"Turns out those photos are from a movie about Oswald, but since they don't tag them that way on a
Google search, most people will assume they are looking at photos from the actual event. The photos
from the movie then act as “proof” of the event, you see. In fact, with more research that is exactly
what I found. Many websites are selling those images from later movies as being from Dallas in 1963.
They are spinning them not only as proof of the event, but as part of later manufactured stories."
http://mileswmathis.com/barindex2.pdf


Anyways, the JFK "event" is undoubtedly the most successful psyop EVER. It has made us all argue for five decades - and counting.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6362
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby nonhocapito on July 10th, 2016, 9:16 pm

OK Simon, I was sloppy and my bad, because truth be told I read this in a hurry. (Though I don't see why the need for that "YOU" all capitals. Have I called you sloppy recently? :P )

Anyway, let me ask you this, why in that essay there are full paragraphs presenting these pictures as original "faked" pictures? Why calling the author of the pictures a "photo faker"? Why using sentences like "the car should have..." "here's another obvious fake..." when the writer is aware that this is not the case?

I sure fell for it, but the least I can say is that the text is not well put together, and that there is some ambiguity on part of the author on what really is the message here, since these pictures do not represent "discoveries" that the author has made. At all.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby simonshack on July 10th, 2016, 9:32 pm

Aww - so sorry, nonho - I sure didn't mean to sound accusatory by typing "YOU" in all caps! It was only a way of highlighting that I was speaking of you!

And yes, I also have many questions regarding Miles Mathis and his writings - yet, as you'll surely understand, it's a bit of an awkward / sensitive /embarrassing affair for me to criticize his stuff. For now, I prefer to just 'sit back' and see what he comes up with. I must say that I've enjoyed some of his more compelling stuff - whereas some other stuff of his has left me wondering. In any case, it sure was weird of him to recently say that "he now dissociates himself / and is severing alliance from this forum" - or something to that tune.

Oh wait - here it is:

MilesMathis wrote:Finally, I have removed the link to the film September Clues, although I haven't found any reason to
disagree with its main points. I am severing any alliance with Clues Forum and Simon Shack simply
because I am tired of being slandered on his forum, not just by anonymous posters, but by some of his
closest buddies (like Hoi Polloi). I haven't kept up with all the 911 research of the past five years,
having moved on to others things, so this breaking of alliance doesn't have anything to do with specific
911 disagreements with Shack. I honestly don't know what his latest theories are. In my mind, the
event had been proved to be a false flag a decade ago, and arguing about details of destruction seems
counter-productive. It wasn't destroyed in the way we were told by the people we are told for the
reasons we are told, and it is clear it was destroyed with the complicity of our own government and its
agencies. There has been enough evidence to go to trial for many years, and the reason it isn't going to
trial and won't ever go to trial has nothing to do with planes or no-planes.

I have never attacked Shack, his site, or the film, having a link to it and recommending it for many
years. Therefore, any rational person would expect he would wish to form some sort of alliance with
me, or at least keep his mouth shut. From what I can tell, my research on Nukes also folds in with his,
as does my research on fake events. So I don't really know what his problem is. Possibly he didn't like
the fact that I also linked to other early 911 films, films he didn't fully agree with. But that seems a
petty reason to attack me as he has. At any rate, I am attacked enough by paid trolls and don't need to
be attacked by those who should be friends. If Shack wishes to make me his enemy, I guess I will bow
to that wish, but I don't link to enemies. I also suggest that it is either a red flag or a foot-shooting on
his part. You should ask why he is attacking me, and demand an answer. The reasons he has given
don't make any sense.

http://mileswmathis.com/self.pdf


I have never attacked Miles Mathis either - and have never, in any way or form, called him 'an enemy'. What gives?

Miles, if you read this, will you please get in touch? Thanks !
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6362
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby allancw on August 9th, 2016, 12:15 am

Hi Simon & Co.,

I'm late coming to this party -- I've been off the CF for a while and just now remember how important it is. (I'm not a member of any other forum; forgive any format screw ups; contributing to websites other than my blog is not my thing.) I'm working on a blog post about Miles, which I'll probably link to here when it's done. In prep for writing it I came here, figuring CF might have some insights on Miles. I of course was right.

Up front: I don't know what to think of Miles. Over the past week as I've done a marathon read of him. I keep going back and forth -- I mean of course on the issue of whether he's legit, i.e., whether his misdirections are purposeful or the sort of errors/omissions that any of us might make, especially if we have the prodigious output of a Miles Mathis. I say that up front because it may sound like I've made up my mind on him, and he's dirty. Not so.

Having read a lot (but not all) of his fakery stuff and maybe gotten a bit of the gist of his physics, and having read this whole thread start to finish, at the moment I have two 'problems' with Miles: 1. The content of my recent correspondence with him, and 2. His JFK essay. I'll be brief; I'll have a lot more to say in my post.

First let me point out that I've been doing a careful study of how misdirection/NLP works. I've come to the conclusion that if you spot its continual or blatant use by someone, that someone must be considered to be a mole/shill/limited hangout, i.e., a government agent. This may not be news to anyone on this forum, but I would suggest you guys keep it consciously in mind when you're trying to figure who is who in the world of the alt media. Me, I spot obvious NLP (for short) that is that. My personal best example is my outing of James Corbett:

http://blog.banditobooks.com/an-open-le ... s-corbett/

If anyone disagrees with my take on Corbett, I am of course all ears. Okay, then. Back to Miles.

I was surprised that only very recently did someone bring up Miles's JFK stunner (I mean the implications thereof). Nonhocapito of course made an error in his 'busting' of Miles's photo 'fake' 'fakery' and was quickly corrected: Miles does point out that the photos were from a theatrical movie. (I knew this as soon as I saw them.) But the way Miles concocted this section of his essay is itself a form of NLP, although not on the level of Corbett's (in my link). In other words, it's not enough to 'bust' him, but the way he presented those photos... his misdirection in letting you think that the photos were part of the JFK 'op', even for just a few paragraphs IS a form of NLP, a subtle way to get your mind thinking a certain way, not so much about those photos, but about his analyses of them... it's not... honest. Also, as a photographer myself, I have found some - more than a little -- of Mile's photo analyses to be questionable. (I'll work specifics into my upcoming blog post.)

But my main problem is best summed up by a subscriber to my site. In my recent post I suggested my people read Miles's JFK essay, the better to understand my upcoming analysis. Here's an email that came in:

'Good afternoon, Allan,
I can see why you want to call your next entry "The Most Important Person in the World." [This hyperbole is explained in my post, which I'll but at the bottom of this]
I've been reading Miles Mathis for the better part of two days and all I can say is, "Holy crap!" I'm extremely interested in your next blog post about how you see his limited hangout manifesting, where the disinfo might be, what his origins of influence are, etc. Admittedly, I need to process some of this before more incisive questions will even come to mind.

But at this point, where I struggle is with putting the pieces together in a way that makes sense. If we are as stupid as we appear to be, why does anyone have to disappear in order to be part of a shadow government? I've been convinced Cheney is a part of that, and he must be on his third heart by now and damned if he will disappear. Ha. But getting back to the faked death issue, there must be "something better" for these elites to give up living in the seen world. And this is where MM stops; for me to believe, and granted he makes a great case and pulls some things together that never made sense before, it ALL has to make sense. Elite people sacrificing their freedom to move about in the world...I need more information as to why they'd do that. That may be the most fascinating secret of all. The false deep events make a lot more sense, (on the face of it) in that they are purely intended for social engineering (control and manipulation) purposes. And they work so well.

This is heavy stuff; fascinating, but if all true, we are as you point out, way beyond the matrix we've been thinking about, which was bad enough. What I thought I knew, which most people would consider nuts, turns out to be the tip of the iceberg. Breathtakingly depressing, really. And yet getting closer to the truth is nothing short of exhilarating for me.

I'm also curious as to whether in your time in Hollywood, you were aware of the level of CIA involvement he talks about. I'm hoping you don't mind getting these ramblings of mine, just some feedback for your blog.

I hope you're doing well!
Take care,'
Holly

(My initial version of Holly's observation amounted to this: 'So they have to give up golf?')

I had already contacted Miles via email (more below) so I sent him the above text as a way of voicing my main concern about his essay. This is the reply I got:

From: "mm@milesmathis.com" <mm@milesmathis.com>
To: Allan Weisbecker <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2016 9:31 PM
Subject: re: a subscriber's email

Because I don't know everything I am a limited hangout? Beautiful logic. '

You must understand that one of the issues that attracted me to Miles to begin with is that he's really good with motives; virtually all his other essays tell us WHY the events were faked, and he makes sense. His email answer above is... balderdash. In fact, here's my reply (just sent a few hours ago):

Miles,

'if you're too busy to write a proper answer you should have remained silent -- your response both took time to write and was counter-productive, no matter who you are. in fact, i find it hard to believe that the same person who wrote the beat essay (and others) is answering emails. FYI.

AW

Indeed, another subscriber, one who had already read a lot of Miles's stuff, including his physics, offered the observation that his physics writing and his 'conspiracy' stuff 'feel' like they were written by different people. I haven't studied the essays with this in mind, but the fellow who wrote me is smart, so... maybe keep the thought in mind. (Also, I don't like it that Miles often buttresses a point with something to the effect of 'This is not a conspiracy theory. It's mainstream.' You may see this as a minor detail, but that use of words is counter-productive to our goal (finding a little truth), and unlike someone of Miles's caliber of critical thought. To me, it's possible NLP.)

Before I send you to my recent blog post so you can better judge what Miles's emails may mean, I'll mention one other problem I had with the JFK essay: He doesn't mention the shooting of Connally. At all. Nor does he much mention Jackie, whether she was actually there or a double. With some thought you'll see that the issue of Connally's shooting relates to this: if real bullets were flying all over the place, the real Jackie would have been elsewhere. This leads to all sorts of problems (for Mile's theory), and which I'll go into in my post. (If no real bullets were fired, what was with Connally's 'wounds'? What was the logic?) These issues are important enough that (in a long essay) not dealing with them qualifies as lies by omission, IMO.

There are actually a lot of problems like this, 'devil in the detail' problems. And hey, is Holly's question, 'Why do you have to be dead?' not a deal breaker?

Also, Miles's reaction to Simon -- that whole 'take off the slander (sic) and I'll be your friend' bullshit -- is a REAL problem for me. Again, it's like there is a Miles who writes often brilliant essays, then there's the Miles who says stupid shit in emails. And as with James Corbett -- who in the past 18 months has produced three slick, full length documentaries while putting a huge amount of material on his site and writing a weekly essay for someone else, and who just recently (in the credits to his last documentary) admitted to having a little 'help,' in the form of a video editor... my point being, whoa! where are all those words coming from?

Anyway, enough. I don't want to tire myself out here; I don't have the energy I had when I was younger (and surfier) and have to ration my writing time. Anyone interested, go ahead and subscribe to my blog. Here's my last post:

http://blog.banditobooks.com/from-a-blu ... n-montana/

Allan

Another thing. I look at someone's stuff, I like to ask myself, 'What's the real message here?' In the JFK (and other) essays, there is a figure conspicuous in his absence: George H W Bush. 'Nuff said on that.

Most of MIles's physics is above my grade, but my impression -- again, this is looking for a real bottom line -- is that he basically accepts Einstein's Relativity theories. IMO, Relativity is the biggest fraud in this history of science. I could be wrong about Miles's supporting it, I may be grossly oversimplifying his view, but that's my take.

Some of you may be interested in some of my videos, which are linked at the bottom of the blog post. (Simon was kind and cool enough to leave a great comment on what is still my favorite vid, which is at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ04UjoErP4)
allancw
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: July 18th, 2011, 1:54 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby anonjedi2 on August 9th, 2016, 6:13 am

a) In my opinion, hoax deaths likely result in a relocation to some island or other body of land, restricted to the elite, where they can retire and live amongst each other. This body of land probably has nothing but peace and tranquility, advanced technology, science, transportation, etc. Who wouldn't want to go there?

b) Why are you assuming Connelly's wounds are real?

Cheers
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 698
Joined: December 31st, 2012, 6:50 am

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby brianv on August 9th, 2016, 12:11 pm

anonjedi2 » August 9th, 2016, 6:13 am wrote:a) In my opinion, hoax deaths likely result in a relocation to some island or other body of land, restricted to the elite, where they can retire and live amongst each other. This body of land probably has nothing but peace and tranquility, advanced technology, science, transportation, etc. Who wouldn't want to go there?

b) Why are you assuming Connelly's wounds are real?

Cheers


CUBA.

Ditto. These guys just do not understand "FAKED".
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3861
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby allancw on August 9th, 2016, 6:23 pm

'These guys' just don't understand FAKED?' Mmmmm. By 'these guys' I presume you mean the unenlightened? OK. (I'll look up 'FAKED' to see if it means something different in all caps...)

The advantage of being unenlightened and knowing I'm thus handicapped allows me -- or forces me -- to use my critical thinking facilities, since I know I'm not innately wise. For example, re Connally's possibly faked wounds (which I clearly mention, anonjedi2), I'd ask myself why such an otherwise brilliant plan would be complicated by an unnecessarily messy detail, which would result in more people knowing of nature of the op. Connally's 'wounds' in fact raised all sorts of red flags that called attention to the faults in the 'story,' with no up side. You might reply that this would be one of those 'false leads' that distract, get folks arguing about it, misdirecting them and so forth, but at a certain point the sheer weight of the number of 'apparent fuck ups' (false leads for conspiracy theorists) -- any of which could 'go wrong' -- would have ol' Occam shaking his head in doubt, if not disgust.

Miles in general seems to figure that many if not most suspicious 'world event' deaths are really relocations, even of lesser players. In the case of the JFK 'op', presumably whatever 'paradise' they all get sent to would get pretty crowded -- the number of JFK-related deaths is up there in the hundreds by most estimates. Talk about sloppy!

But my main issue remains the one that Miles admits (in his email) he's completely ignorant about: Why you'd have to be 'dead' to run the shadow government. How very unlike Miles Mathis. (Does he consider this a... a detail?) A related issue is simple human nature, especially among famous and powerful people. Giving up the trappings of power -- the public flaunting of the fact that they 'are different from you and me' (Fitzgerald, was it?) -- seems completely contra to everything we know about them.

As I say, I'm working on a more detailed analysis of Miles's JFK essay (it being by far the most implications-laden). Ya'll might wait for that before you judge me to be one of 'these guys,' and pointing out what I 'don't understand.'
allancw
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: July 18th, 2011, 1:54 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby brianv on August 9th, 2016, 7:09 pm



I'm not allowed to use ! bangs, now I'm not allowed to use caps for emphasis? Fuck.

whatever 'paradise' they all get sent to would get pretty crowded


People die and other people take their place. And there are probably several locations. Think they're that stupid? Don't answer that!

And yes, I have seen several people slither around the idea of fakery and never fully commit to it.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3861
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby Seneca on August 9th, 2016, 10:39 pm

This reminds me of what jumpy64 wrote.
jumpy64 » 30 Sep 2015, 10:46 wrote:In the case of Mathis, I like his writings too, and I don't even think he lies in them. He uses some misdirections, as he would call them himself, and omits something.

But what he omits could very well be one of the most important pieces in the puzzle, if not the most important, as I argue in a new topic I've just launched, titled "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on a Very Open Conspiracy".

It is possible that he is misdirecting by giving truths and omitting important information. And because he seems to answer all the questions (that he raises himself) this could prevent other researchers from researching the topics for themselves. Because you get the impression that the most important information has already been found. It would be different if his website made it possible to make comments and people would be able to post new questions or ideas that resulted from reading his essays. Because now people reading his essays will have new questions and new insights about the topic, but these will probably be forgotten, unless someone has enough information to make an essay of his own.

If they are right and Miles Mathis is giving good info but tries to misdirect by omitting important information here is a possible solution: start a topic on it here on cluesforum about that specific "essay" and post what you think is missing and what misdirection you think could be going on. First try to understand the reasons that he gives for the way he writes. He talks a lot about efficiency.

If Miles Mathis is genuine it would still be useful to have a place were his ideas can be discussed and built upon. For him it would have the advantage that he doesn't have to spend time moderating or weeding out the trolls. Since he doesn't want to invest much time to correct mistakes in old essays this would also be a good place to post them. Sorry for my bad English.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 420
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby allancw on August 10th, 2016, 12:25 am

I honestly don't understand what this means: ' I have seen several people slither around the idea of fakery and never fully commit to it.'

I don't believe you mean that evidence is unimportant...

By the way, Miles's game with Simon ('take down the slander') reminds me of how many alt media folks (who I believe are moles) react to me. They need a reason not to deal with me or even answer questions so they try to blame the disconnection on me: that I'm 'suspicious' or whatever. As with Miles and as with Jay Dyer:

http://blog.banditobooks.com/dyer-strai ... alt-media/

Miles MAY have been told (by whomever) to take down the September Clues link and needed an excuse.

Just a thought. Also, I suspect that MIles knows the difference between 'slander' and 'libel' and MAY have misused the terms as a subtle signal that he didn't really want to do it (take the link down). I realize that this last bit is a stretch...

I'm still on the fence with the guy. Will work on my essay on his JFK theory, as suggested above.
allancw
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: July 18th, 2011, 1:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Question of Fakery

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests