Deconstructing Miles W. Mathis

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

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby brianv on August 26th, 2016, 12:07 pm

I have never seen any proof of the existence of "Miles Mathis", I have asked previously and didn't get a reply. Do you have a photograph or a video of Miles Mathis?

Conference? Do you mean the one held on June 16 last? In a remote part of the USA and in a private home with no food provided that costs $350 where select attendees will sit around a table for five or six hours and talk. Hardly a conference now, more a clandestine meeting of conspiracy numpties.

So no cameras no public appearance, and no attendees - I'm guessing. I'm also guessing that you are here to promote a fictional character...nay a computer algorithm that pumps out shit for the aforementioned conspiracy idiots.

http://milesmathis.com/conf.pdf

http://readwrite.com/2013/01/15/why-wri ... t-for-you/
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3861
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby simonshack on August 26th, 2016, 2:36 pm

allancw wrote:Is it possible that 'they' have finally decided - for whatever reason -- that they want a 'real' history on the record? I mean, what harm could it do?


Dear Allan,

hmm... so are you basically implying that MM is in the process of revealing to the world the 'real history' of our times? That MM's essays / papers dare go where no one else's dare go - and that you're therefore scratching your head at why the 'powers-that-be' would let him go that far?

If so, I beg to differ. Although I have read a fair amount of his stuff - and enjoyed much of it - my underlying feeling has always been that his writing skills are far superior than the actual 'beef' that his write-ups contain. I can almost deal with his oft-condescending tone - betraying a massive, über-inflated ego - but I've hardly ever had any major 'a-ha moments' whilst reading his blog. Moreover, he very seldom appears to reference - or give due credit to when credit is due - to any other independent researchers who've pioneered several of his (hence implied) "personal findings". For instance, his fairly recent paper (Jan 24, 2016) titled The Nuclear Hoax (which is actually quite decent) makes no mention of the (now freezed / defunct) "NUKE LIES" forum - nor does it mention Cluesforum's Nuke Hoax thread (started by yours truly back in November 2009).

Now, don't get me wrong: I salute MM's gradual awakening to the US military/media complex's massive & systematic use of fabricated / doctored imagery to pull off their many PsyOps and mass-deceptions - and I am still hoping he will eventually reach the same, general conclusion as we have (laboriously) reached on this forum over the years. That is to say - and to sum it up succinctly:


- ALL the imagery of "Nuke Bombs" is deceptive/fabricated/doctored/fake/"Hollywood-crafted" - and meant to fool this world's population.

- ALL the imagery of (major)"Terror Attacks" is deceptive/fabricated/doctored/fake/"Hollywood-crafted" - and meant to fool this world's population.

- ALL the imagery of "Space Travel" is deceptive/fabricated/doctored/fake/"Hollywood-crafted" - and meant to fool this world's population.

- ALL the imagery of "School shootings" (and similar PsyOps) is deceptive/fabricated/doctored/fake/"Hollywood-crafted" - and meant to fool this world's population.

- ALL the imagery of "JFK shooting" (and similar PsyOps) is deceptive/fabricated/doctored/fake/"Hollywood-crafted" - and meant to fool this world's population.

Having said that, I will keep keeping an eye on MM's writings, as I do believe the guy exists - hoping he will, at some stage, gracefully acknowledge that he draws some inspiration from the daily, continuous and collective efforts upheld by the international membership of this forum. To be sure, his "one-man-band" attitude - pretending to unveil the 'real history' of this world all by himself - is rather arrogant and childish.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6362
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby allancw on August 26th, 2016, 6:44 pm

Hoi and all, please consider this post very incomplete. I have more MM reading to do before offering a definitive opinion. In spite of what follows, I'm not more than 90% sure about MM.

First, thanks for the suggestion that I actually count MM's words; it didn't take that long and will allow me to easily do word searches, etc. Rounding off, so far this year MM has written 362,000 words in his Updates section ('historical' stuff), which averages out to be 1,500 words a day. That number may seem do-able but keep in mind that we're talking every day, seven days a week, no let up, no days off. My average output on a good day is about that, and most days are not good. And this is when I KNOW WHAT I WANT TO SAY (no research, and dealing with a subject I already know about).

Adding MM's physics word output is a problem (at least for me) since his dating of additions is very spotty. (In spite of my interest in physics/cosmology I haven't got around to a lot of this stuff, perhaps out of embarrassment that much of it is above my pay grade.) But you can be sure it would add a lot of words to the above total. Please do keep this in mind.

What the brute word count does not reflect is the time/effort in research. Becoming an 'expert' on so many disparate subjects... well, it boggles MY mind... I also assume that MM is a voracious reader... on everything, it seems... does he ever... get out and about?...

By his own account and via the images he presents, we know that MM is also a dedicated artist. I'm talking DEDICATED (someday I'll figure out the italics here). I find it hard to believe that (at least in theory) he does not spend half his 'free time' (whatever that means) with his art projects. If he does not do this, then I don't understand his outrage over the state of the art world/business. So, in a sense, you can either double the above number or halve the other (you know what I mean).

In one of my emails to MM I commented that he seems 'too good to be true.' This is my point, I guess. I have to repeat: that he gave up $400 so as not to be subjected to questions from me is... under 'normal' circumstances this would be enough...

I should also mention that I misspoke in my last post. The 'Unlimited hangout' business. There is actually no such thing. All hangouts involve misdirection/NLP, by definition. With MM this subject is complex, but for now I would say that his misdirection/NLP is reflected partially in those subjects he avoids. His JFK essay also contains some blatant NLP: when he shows 'fake' photos that were stills from fiction films, and waits a few paragraphs before he owns up that they are not evidence of anything.

Again, I'm making this brief, but MM's 'demand' that Simon take down the 'slander' on CF should be a huge red flag (plus his scrubbing of September Clues from his links section). Ditto his correspondence with me, which I have outlined. Here's my last email to MM, sent on August 20:

Miles,

I really wish we could communicate on a serious level. In my research re alt media moles there truly is no one I want more to be one of us than you. This is based on a marathon reading of your work, wherein any 'complaints' I might have are minor.

[Don't get too aggravated as you read; I had a reason for my horn blowing, which I'll explain at the end]

I assume you've looked at enough of my stuff to know that I'm good at noticing anomalies that others miss, plus their implications -- your specialty. I don't claim to be in your league, but still, did FBI agent O'Neill's faked death get by you? It is after all one of those beauts with all sorts of implications... or Corbett... how could I be the only one who noticed his travesty at Kuala?

The MH17 shoot down. I knew from day one it was Western Intel who did it -- not one of the MSM mentioned the possibility that it was a bomb on board, even though for the first 48 hours all that was (supposedly) known was that the craft blew up at cruising altitude. Did you catch that? It was obvious that all the media were forewarned about it so no one would slip and mention the bomb possibility (the #1 likelihood, given what was known about the event), since that would mean a lengthy forensics, which in turn would mean a postponement of blaming the Russians.

The Sikh temple shooting: as soon as no one mentioned his car (as with Aurora and all the other 'shootings', the perp's car was a big media deal), I knew it was a team and that the MSM was getting their orders from one place. I did a video on that one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa8OBTWWTKA

No one in the alt media noticed these details. No, I can't expect you to pick up on everything; that's not what I'm getting at. I'm only saying that I'm worth being in touch with.

Why you decided to forgo $400 to not be in the same room with me does nag, but a guy of your intellect is going to have some quirks. That's the way I'm looking at this right now.

Have you read The Most Dangerous Book in the World; 9/11 as Mega-Ritual? Your many points that the occult/Satanism is misdirection are well taken, but in the case of 9/11 it certainly appears that if this were the case, they've gone to absurd lengths to fool us.... (I know that SK Bain is one of them but that's a separate subject; his factual/occult observations are correct, IMO, although I have not checked everything.)

One of your more important conclusions is that there appears to be a division amongst the bad guy ranks. Could Bain's book be an example of that, and an indication that some of them are very much into the occult?

I hope we can be in touch.

allan

I'm coming around re your JFK thesis. A piece of related weirdness: the microphone hanging down in one of the Ruby-shoots-Oswald still photos, which would appear to indicate multiple takes, looks to me like a paste-in (the mic's shadow is wrong). Given your expertise in photo analysis, be great to get your take on this anomaly... like, why would they do that?

#

No reply so far and I don't expect one.

Hoi, you mentioned John O'Neill as if everyone knows that he was a part of the 9/11 op and was/is (he faked his death) a bad guy. Well, I guess I missed that (in the alt media). A while back I wrote a rather long essay, part of which 'outed' O'Neill. That part of the essay is at:
http://www.banditobooks.com/essay/content/3.php

(The essay is now dated on issues like 'no planes'...)

For those with limited patience, here's a summation of O'Neill, and who he is:

http://www.banditobooks.com/essay/content/10.php

Is this old news to everyone? If so, my apologies. I realize that many on the CF are 'ahead of me' on certain subjects (no sarcasm here).

In my email I was merely trying to show that I occasionally do notice things others miss. In my Corbett expose, for example, I point out that of the 350 comments to his video, only one other person even noticed his 'Fl 77' bullshit (this person was Anthony Lawson, whom I always saw as a mole... but even Lawson didn't mention that Corbett was giving himself away with his NLP...)

I don't know how to embed a photo here, so the PS in my email may not be clear. The still photo (of the Oswald shooting) with the mic hanging down is actually an interesting issue. IMO the mic has been pasted in (it's lit differently from all else in the photo, which is flash lit). Since the hanging mic constitutes a continuity error with the Oswald-shooting videos, it is evidence of multiple takes, which in turn is evidence that the whole Oswald shooting is staged. Now this may be old news to CF folks, but here we have 'proof' -- but if the proof is fabricated... well, things get really interesting. Do you see what I mean?

If I recall correctly, an aspect of CF is that individuals who are obviously moles/shills/trolls are quickly banned. IMO, MM is a unique case here. I repeat: MM's output is too far above that which is possible for a human being. Ergo, MM is not what he claims to be. Ergo... I dunno.
allancw
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: July 18th, 2011, 1:54 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby allancw on August 26th, 2016, 7:04 pm

Simon,

Our posts crossed in somewhere in the aether... as I say in my post, it's very brief compared to my burgeoning view of MM. I oversimplified. I agree completely that MM's arrogance is annoying -- I tried to put that aside. I also freely admit that I have missed a lot of CF's research and observations.

My 'real history' comment was also misleading in its brevity. MM does however remind me of SK Bain's Most Dangerous Book, in that I believe it is both a Revelation of the Method AND misdirection/NLP.

Your list of CF revelations seems to imply that I didn't know this stuff until MM. Well, you know better than that. As you know, I take issue with some of your 'space stuff,' like the idea that a rocket will not work in a vacuum... no big deal... if you've seen my videos you know that I know that most if not all of NASA's crapola is just that, crapola. But - for example (and this was not replied to here, when I brought it up), that NASA 'admitted' that it's probe electrically arced with a comet before 'landing' is an anomaly, since Wal Thornhill of Electric Universe predicted this would happen. Now I don't have time right now to go into why this is an anomaly, but it IS an anomaly. If you want to talk about it, let's...

The JFK assassination as complete fraud is another issue that (for me) is far from settled. Perhaps you can direct me to the thread that explains how it went at Parkland, for example...

But for now, Simon, please give your opinion on my theory that no single human could come up with MM's output, just in the last 8 months. This would seem to be important. If I'm right, then MM is likely one of them. If so, we can deal with motive, etc.

Good to be back here. I need the stimulation.
allancw
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: July 18th, 2011, 1:54 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby allancw on August 26th, 2016, 7:26 pm

Simon, re your comment or implication that much of MM is old news for the CF, I can only observe that over the last few months at least six 'alt media figures' have highly recommended MM's site on venues like Red Ice Radio and Veritas (this one is dirty, I know) and I forget what others. CF, in spite of the sometimes brilliant breakthroughs, does not come up...

This could be another indication that MM is a mole; or maybe not. For whatever reason, he's getting a lot of press. This means SOMETHING.

When I say I'm not in your league of 'noticing things' I'm not being sarcastic. It's just a fact. But please name the faked deaths/events that MM 'exposes' that you already knew about. Or didn't know about. Whichever is easier.

Some of us notice things that others do not notice -- which is one reason CF is good. We can learn from each other. Did you notice the stuff I mentioned about MH17 and the Sikh temple shoot out? If not, no big deal. If so, good for you. But I didn't think about the OJ Simpson trial as faked, nor even the Tate murders. Lizzie Borden? OK Corral? Jesus. When you say you've had few 'ah-ha' moments reading Miles, is that really true? If so, you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.

(I just took another look at his physics stuff; looks like it just about equals his 'conspiracy' stuff in wordage. Pu-lease! This is worse than Corbett doing three major documentaries in 18 months, plus his site stuff with no help. Ridiculous.)
allancw
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: July 18th, 2011, 1:54 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby hoi.polloi on August 26th, 2016, 10:33 pm

allancw,

You make a good point. Thank you for counting the words. That is indeed a large sum. Hmm. But my cousin is pretty prolific on his iPhone and if he just learned to use some big words ...

In answer to your curiosity about Miles' supposed artistry, allancw, and to add to the puzzle, I would submit my original contention.

Miles cannot with honesty take his "art" seriously, since it's not good and as an artist he would not only intuitively know that but be able to see that even his own documentation of his art isn't professional. It resembles at best someone who is doing entry-level paintings for a professor, who would tell them, "Miles, for fucks's sake, stop copying from photography or trying to make your pieces inordinately in that vein, and actually take real observations from life and develop something! You're not going to get perfect by imitating an imitation of perfection! You need to render as if you care instead of as if you were trying to just slap up your imagined idea of a painting. Stop being lazy, stop taking shortcuts, you don't want to be king of the dipshits."

Why do I think this is what they would say? Because this message is one of the first messages of every art professor (I've met) addressing any of their haughty students who thought they were hot shit in high school because they could mimic some basic illusions.

I contend again that he does not take his art seriously and he is not an artist in the sense he would have us believe — as some kind of "classical" or visual artist. He is a tinkerer. And, I would say that about myself in the case of most visual art that I've attempted, and maybe it takes one to know one, fine. The difference is some people are actively and daily trying to improve, while others — characters like Miles — are entirely content to suck and demand attention rather than earning it, like those particular Instagram Twitter artists broadcasting their butthurt about "copyright" to the world instead of getting their nose back to the studio and producing better things. Separate issue.

I am prepared to believe he may be "dedicated" to the art of writing, perhaps. Or conning.

But any visual artist bitching about the state of the "art world" instead of driving themselves to improve from hotel lobby portfolio pieces and claiming they're marvelous and inspiring is suspicious in my book. Often, these types are also in the "art world" for entirely the wrong reasons; that is, for fame and money. However, I would never accuse "MWM" of this since it is mere speculation should we actually have any real grounds to suspect him.

Once again, I contend if the writings credited to him contain good info, that's all that matters. If they do, it doesn't matter if he's a hack or not. He could be a hack that's onto something very important to humanity! But in any case, that's my thoughts on this for now. I think it could be he's just a bit of a prolific 'incompletist'. If we're being optimistic.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4787
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby allancw on August 27th, 2016, 12:54 am

Hoi,

I appreciate your taking the time to reply; I'm surprised at so little CF response in general; even Simon avoided the real point of my posts. I would think that the issue (or non-issue) of MM's status as one of us or one of them would be of interest, given the subject matters he covers (or doesn't) and the details he goes into. As they say about the Devil and details...

I have to disagree with your view that 'if the info is good...' etc. then it doesn't matter if the writer is a 'hack.' Seems like by 'hack' you are referring to his art... look, I don't give a rat's ass if he is a great, good, or lousy 'artist.' I'm only interested (for now) in the time it takes from his writing/researching life. (I can't, and I almost mean this literally, even draw a stick figure, so I for one AM impressed (enough) with his art to at least see him as 'an artist.' Also, his outrage -- earned or not -- has led to some interesting essays.)

What's interesting about your reply -- especially considering your history on CF as a serious researcher -- is how it completely avoids my point. I don't know what this means. To some extent ditto re Simon, who is pretty quiet here. Perhaps he's busy today.

Maybe to you I am a 'writer' in the sense you regard MM as an 'artist.' If so, okay. I only bring up my cv (as a writer) to indicate that I maybe know something about the process. Writing is not easy. As I get older (68 now) it gets more difficult, but that's another subject. MM is pretty good, stylistically, as an essayist, and as he himself points out, he is consistent, stylistically. Which makes it more difficult to claim his stuff is written by multiple persons or by committee. Yet I cannot picture a real human with his output. Be like his claiming to run the 100 in eight-oh.

But I would again point out that this fellow (or persona) MM, and who he really is, is an important issue, or at least it should be, to those who come to this forum. If what I'm suspecting is true, if MM is not 'one of us,' I would submit that a new level of limited hangout is at hand. That's pretty much all I'm saying.

This issue of Simon and MM is also disturbing. I just came across a lengthy bit on his website wherein he goes on and on about how Simon has 'attacked' him. 'Attacked him'? (MM even mentions you along these lines.) This sort of crapola makes no sense:

'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.'

Where has Simon 'given reasons' for attacking this guy? Where has Simon attacked him? Does MM expect Simon to censor forum members? Look, if MM is making no sense here, what does that mean? (I have posited that MM is making up excuses to delete Sept Clues from his links page -- this sort of thing has happened to me. If someone doesn't want to answer my simple and non-combative questions they accuse me of bullshit in exactly the same way. This would be another indication that 'MM' has marching orders from someone.)

I've come to the conclusion that most (80% or more) of the 'alt media' (whatever that means) is controlled op/govt moles. It would seem to me to be a worthwhile endeavor to identify those who -- in the end -- wish to harm us. You say:

'I contend if the writings credited to him contain good info, that's all that matters.'

NO NO NO NO NO! It's not ALL that matters. There has to be some trust. I don't have the time or inclination to check everything anyone writes (simple facts, say). I mean try fact-checking MM. It would take days to do so with most of his essays.(Another clue that his output is beyond human ability.) I've noticed what I consider some misdirection in his writings, especially his dismissal of the occult. It's misdirection, he repeats over and over, yet uses numerology all over the place to buttress his points (how 'they' constantly use it). He almost never mentions the Freemasons. (I could go into details but I'm not sure anyone is interested in this line of reasoning.)

If 90% of MM is 'good info,' fine, but if 10% is misdirection I want to know that. It also occurs to me that the PTB may want some of us to know how hopeless our situation is, which is certainly one take on the totality of MM's work. (Ditto a lot of CF, come to think of it.) I'm pretty old and I have no kids, so the degree of hopelessness is a minor issue. I just want to know how the world really works.

For me, knowing who MM really is would be a big step forward in my little quest. Any real help would be appreciated.
allancw
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: July 18th, 2011, 1:54 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby Farcevalue on August 27th, 2016, 4:17 am

hoi.polloi » August 26th, 2016, 5:33 pm wrote:allancw,

You make a good point. Thank you for counting the words. That is indeed a large sum. Hmm. But my cousin is pretty prolific on his iPhone and if he just learned to use some big words ...

In answer to your curiosity about Miles' supposed artistry, allancw, and to add to the puzzle, I would submit my original contention.

Miles cannot with honesty take his "art" seriously, since it's not good and as an artist he would not only intuitively know that but be able to see that even his own documentation of his art isn't professional. It resembles at best someone who is doing entry-level paintings for a professor, who would tell them, "Miles, for fucks's sake, stop copying from photography or trying to make your pieces inordinately in that vein, and actually take real observations from life and develop something! You're not going to get perfect by imitating an imitation of perfection! You need to render as if you care instead of as if you were trying to just slap up your imagined idea of a painting. Stop being lazy, stop taking shortcuts, you don't want to be king of the dipshits."

Why do I think this is what they would say? Because this message is one of the first messages of every art professor (I've met) addressing any of their haughty students who thought they were hot shit in high school because they could mimic some basic illusions.

I contend again that he does not take his art seriously and he is not an artist in the sense he would have us believe — as some kind of "classical" or visual artist. He is a tinkerer. And, I would say that about myself in the case of most visual art that I've attempted, and maybe it takes one to know one, fine. The difference is some people are actively and daily trying to improve, while others — characters like Miles — are entirely content to suck and demand attention rather than earning it, like those particular Instagram Twitter artists broadcasting their butthurt about "copyright" to the world instead of getting their nose back to the studio and producing better things. Separate issue.

I am prepared to believe he may be "dedicated" to the art of writing, perhaps. Or conning.

But any visual artist bitching about the state of the "art world" instead of driving themselves to improve from hotel lobby portfolio pieces and claiming they're marvelous and inspiring is suspicious in my book. Often, these types are also in the "art world" for entirely the wrong reasons; that is, for fame and money. However, I would never accuse "MWM" of this since it is mere speculation should we actually have any real grounds to suspect him.

Once again, I contend if the writings credited to him contain good info, that's all that matters. If they do, it doesn't matter if he's a hack or not. He could be a hack that's onto something very important to humanity! But in any case, that's my thoughts on this for now. I think it could be he's just a bit of a prolific 'incompletist'. If we're being optimistic.


I am not versed enough in the visual arts to comment with the level of authority that is demonstrated in the above comments. I do understand that art is subjective and not everyone shares particular tastes. If a forum posted that particular level of criticism toward The Social Service say, with some explanations about how the harmony was elementary or the melodies unimaginative or take your pick of any number of things some elbow-patch-wearing, pipe-smoking, oboe-playing professorial type might have to say about Simon's music, he may feel a bit unwelcome there. (Just to be clear, that was a hypothetical, I don't think anyone, anywhere has ever said such things about The Social Service :) ) Whether that could be considered slander I don't know, but it's generally not the type of thing that artists take well.

Where the particular compositions or canvases actually belong is ultimately up to those that purchase them. I doubt one would have to dig too deeply to find examples of artists who are considered masters that were scorned by their professors.

None of this has anything to do with his exposes, but it's not the first thing I would load onto the welcome wagon.
Farcevalue
Member
 
Posts: 374
Joined: August 27th, 2011, 12:21 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby Kham on August 27th, 2016, 5:55 am

allancw,

I have been enjoying your research, thank you.

I have a question concerning this video you made:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa8OBTWWTKA

What is the purpose of the music playing in the background?
Kham
Member
 
Posts: 71
Joined: June 25th, 2015, 10:30 am

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby Kham on August 27th, 2016, 6:42 am

Dear administrators,

I was not sure where to put my comment about the background sounds in allancw's video that he links to above. Since he used the video as part of his post, I thought it fitting to question it here.
Kham
Member
 
Posts: 71
Joined: June 25th, 2015, 10:30 am

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby brianv on August 27th, 2016, 12:28 pm

I'd still like to hear more about his "outing" of the fictional character "John O' Neill" from the 9/11 novel. And I'd also like an answer to my own question - like have you ever seen or met "Miles Mathis"? Because I'm still of the opinion that it's an "Ezra Pound" computer algorithm which compiles rubbish for numtsumption.

Quite possibly "John O' Neill" was just another of the cheap tricks to traumatise TV land. From 1996 to 2006 we had "Jack O' Neill" of SG1 saving the Galaxy every week from Ra and his slave-army of Jaffa.

Jonathan J. O'Neill, also known as John or, most commonly, Jack, is a Lt. General, in the United States Air Force, who served seven years in the Stargate Program as a Colonel and also as the leader of the SGC's main team, SG-1.
http://stargate.wikia.com/wiki/Jack_O%27Neill

Incidentally the actor who portrayed "Jack O' Neill" has been made an honorary General or some shit in the "US Airforce". Way to go fly-boy.

Also, "Vanessa Lang Langer", I postulated long time ago that "Vanessa Angel" was the target. Guess which TV program
Vanessa Angel ['s breasts] also acted appeared in?

Image
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3861
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby Seneca on August 27th, 2016, 8:50 pm

brianv » 27 Aug 2016, 13:28 wrote:And I'd also like an answer to my own question - like have you ever seen or met "Miles Mathis"? Because I'm still of the opinion that it's an "Ezra Pound" computer algorithm which compiles rubbish for numtsumption.

On page 2 of this topic Gopi wrote that he had met MM in person.
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1758&start=15#p2395359
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 420
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby brianv on August 27th, 2016, 10:27 pm

Seneca » August 27th, 2016, 8:50 pm wrote:
brianv » 27 Aug 2016, 13:28 wrote:And I'd also like an answer to my own question - like have you ever seen or met "Miles Mathis"? Because I'm still of the opinion that it's an "Ezra Pound" computer algorithm which compiles rubbish for numtsumption.

On page 2 of this topic Gopi wrote that he had met MM in person.
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1758&start=15#p2395359


I emailed back and forth for about 6 months, trying to hash out my questions regarding the physics, and thereafter, I have visited him two times. Once for nearly 5 days for a Physics conference, at which time everything other than physics was restricted to over-the-table conversations. The second time was around the first week of this year, so 4 months ago... as we had become good friends by then. So, this is just to show that I have not just "heard about the man", but have actually spent considerable amount of time interacting face-to-face... which is the best way, even if it is a bit heavy on the pocket. His art is quite interesting too, with a Renaissance flair, if you take a look at it. What's more, if things fall into place properly, there will be another visit this summer.


Thanks Seneca, but convinced I'm not. That reads like a website testimonial. "Renaissance flair"? Gimme a break!

Maybe Gopi, could describe Miles Mathis for us? Does he look like James Fetzer or Stephen Hawking? What is his ethnic nationality? Does he only magically appear at costly seminars in the the remotest part of the world? Since you have become good friends, what town or city does he reside in? Public life? Wife and kids? Got his photo? Poster on your bedroom wall?
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3861
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby hoi.polloi on August 28th, 2016, 10:06 pm

Farcevalue wrote:I do understand that art is subjective and not everyone shares particular tastes.


Simon doesn't claim to be a fantastic musician, and never has. He has only ever humbly asked people to check out his work. I am saying writings credited to Miles make him out to be self-possessing of a very high esteem of himself that is incongruous with his actual talents. If you're saying Simon should be so humble about his work that he shouldn't even offer it to the public, I would disagree with you there. If you're saying Miles is a "master" I would just laugh.

To me, it's not a question of taste but of your inability to distinguish between technical abilities. That's fine if you admit it, but then you just admit you don't know, you've never rendered the human figure well or seen a large class of art students present adequate, passable "critique-survivable" nude works (as well as not-so-great works) made from a model, and you move on knowing this. I recommend peeking in (or attending if at all possible) a mildly experienced life drawing class, though, as it will give you a good idea of what passes for technical levels of high art these days, and it will be explained to you (opined, if you prefer) by a professor, what does or does not actually capture details of form. Russian classical schools can be particularly strenuous and strict. You may not even be allowed to do a head until you've mastered less complex (but still challenging) aspects like hands and feet.

They say our society used to have a general appreciation/ability for rendering forms. Like writing and reading. We would no more defend the incorrect spelling or reading of a word as we would a bulbous, wasted-looking or flat/skewed arm that didn't belong. Snobbish, huh? I guess we can thank goodness those days are apparently gone, if Miles' "art" (they look like practice paintings to me, though I guess I go to a lot of art museums) is convincing to people.

allancw wrote:NO NO NO NO NO! It's not ALL that matters. There has to be some trust. [...] I don't have the time or inclination to check everything anyone writes


Yes yes yes, you do, if you care about finding truth rather than just another leader to vet it for you. This isn't sophism. This is the state of espionage in our daily lives.

Wanting trust and needing it are different things. If that's what you call missing a "point", you could say I wasn't even aiming in that direction. I simply disagree with the premise of your complaint. I don't trust you and I don't need to. If I ever feel I need to trust someone, it's my own problem to earn the right to interact with someone on a level that would qualify as tests of that trust. I don't think we even all advertise to each other who we trust and how much we trust various people on this site. I don't think that would create a very good environment for testing facts, either. It's not about personalities. It shouldn't be, unless it's blatantly obvious we have determined someone is certainly a shill.

I think you are good to rack up various evidences for or against the idea of Miles being legit. But don't be offended if people reject various evidences for or against. That's the point and strength of this sort of vague peer review thing we have going on.

The opposite of what you say is true, is true for me. I have more time to check facts than I do to meet my high threshold for trust of another semi-anonymous Internet researcher. If you say you must have some trust implicitly pre-existing with every relationship you're curious about, that's something you provide from your own bosom or gut, not something a complete random stranger necessarily gives you. I personally find most personalities claiming to do research, who are not very trustworthy personalities, do not produce actually good research, and some produce quite a bit of bad research. I don't find that is the case with Simon. He insists on the best, and he corrects his mistakes if they can be shown in his estimation to be such.

I implicitly mistrust Miles' self estimation, but that wouldn't make his/her/its writings blatantly untrue. Indeed, it seems even the PsyOp 'artisans' mix truth and fiction to confuse matters. Or hire people who are confused. So perhaps it's credible Miles is misinformed or foolish rather than deliberately wrong. If you can sort out what Mathis makes sense on and what he doesn't, great! To me, some of his stuff makes sense, and much of it does not. That he has a notable talent for science or art above the skills of a good scientist or a good artist does not compute for me. His writings are amusing, though. And maybe contain facts.

I agree that Miles incorrectly (or disingenuously?) claims Simon has "slandered" him when all we have ever done is wonder together what he is about and whether his writings make sense.

Your post implies you like to advertise your mistrust, while demanding people serve trustworthiness to you. I would like you to take some of our own "trust tests" then. Will you kindly answer the questions put forth to you by myself and other members?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4787
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby simonshack on August 29th, 2016, 3:50 pm

allancw wrote:What's interesting about your reply -- especially considering your history on CF as a serious researcher -- is how it completely avoids my point. I don't know what this means. To some extent ditto re Simon, who is pretty quiet here. Perhaps he's busy today.

Yes, Allan - been both busy and (finally) managed to relax with new lovely gf at the beachside lately. I should soon 'return to normal forum activity' again, though.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6362
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

PreviousNext

Return to The Question of Fakery

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests