Deconstructing Miles W. Mathis

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

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby Seneca on August 29th, 2016, 5:35 pm

Kham » 27 Aug 2016, 06:55 wrote: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?


I have some more questions regarding that video you linked to. It is more than 4 years old so maybe you have changed your mind.

How do you conclude this was a real event?
Do you still think the following is good advice considering what we now know about the media?

0:56 If you want to know the truth, listen to what is said immediatey(sic) after the event...

1:09 It takes time for the media to organize the lies, get everyone on the same page

1:23 Once the Feds take over there won't be any more screw ups, like someone interviewing this woman...


Suppose you are right that it was a staged event (by which you mean that it is a real shooting but controlled). Even then I don't see why you should expect any truth from the media. There is no logic for the Feds to "take over" at some point if they are planning this from day one.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 420
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby allancw on August 29th, 2016, 5:59 pm

Simon,

Good for you! In truth, I was getting worried. I assume you have something lengthy to say on this thread -- and need time to think about it -- otherwise you would have included it in your above post. So I look forward to that. Wait. On the other hand, maybe you missed my post with the word count and the implications thereof and don't realize that something important has happened here.

(By the way, when I first chimed in, I recall this thread being titled 'Miles Mathis, Truther or Something Else?'. I dunno how/when the title change came about but no matter: Assume that I'm dealing with that question, rather than the blander 'Discussing Miles Mathis.'

I've blabbed too much on this thread and apologize for that, but I think I have to repeat myself, since for once I think I really did figure something out (maybe more than one thing), and, as I say, maybe Simon missed it. Somewhere above, Hoi asked me to count MM's wordage in 2016. Here's what I came up with:

'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 [like trips to the beach!]. 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.'

Okay. That's the important stuff from that post. But we really have to do as I suggest: keep in mind that in the meantime Miles is revolutionizing physics with densely written and researched papers (he doesn't date them much so I can't do an actual count). Then there's his art, his dedication to it. Let's give Miles a break and say that he only dedicates half his time to art and physics rather than two thirds. In which case the numbers -- and the absurdity -- in effect double.

Whatever.... Even if we pretend he does the art/physics in his sleep, we still have to account for the in-effect writing of a 1,500 page (more or less, and that's just text, i.e., not counting photos) book with 53 chapters, each chapter being pretty much from-scratch in terms of research. Dense research. In eight months.

I heard from a CF member privately (he wishes to remain anonymous b/c of his job) who is somewhat of an expert on the matter of 'committee' writing/ghost writing and so forth and who has corresponded with MM. In his opinion and just based on the numbers I came up with, the matter is closed: MM is a committee. He also shared with me some of his emails with MM. As my new friend tells me, and I totally agree with him (having had a similar experience) the emails were obviously written by different people. (This also explains why MM doesn't do interviews and why he didn't want to meet me -- I never bought his 'spin' excuse for no interviews since all he had to do was demand it be live or unedited. You get the idea... if an interviewer switched topics on him he'd be screwed.)

Boy I really hesitate to bring this up.... I mean, in the last few days and in reaction to my numerical outing of MIles people here are asking why I put music in a certain video and something about 'Jack O'neill' and more and more about Miles as an artist and on and on and finally Hoi challenged me to answer 'the questions' that have been bothering him. (I'm tempted to ask on what page of the NLP handbook is 'Go on the offensive.') I don't know how many words Hoi burned on the art-subject, but he DID have SOMETHING to say about my numerical revelation:

'...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 ...'

Then Hoi launches into a lengthy essay on Miles's shortcomings as a painter... Point being that the revelation about his 'cousin' is about it in terms of CF reaction to my word count.

And brianv, who has been demanding to see photos of Miles and so forth; his skepticism of Miles's existence is... well, obvious. And here I hand him the answer, staring us all in the face for months... and he repeats his need to see a picture and does Miles look like Fetzer and the bit about O'Neill and so forth. Does this mean that brianv is MM's controlled op on the CF? Just asking.

(I just tried to post this and was informed that there had been another post while I was writing. And guess what it is? Seneca repeating his question about music in my video, plus some other misdirection from the topic at hand. Come on, guys! How f-ing transparent can you get? I'm starting to get cranky.)

The reason I say I hesitate to bring up the above is of course because I can now expect all kinds of ad hominems and hostility and demands for answers to who I am, i.e., still more misdirection, rather than a 'thanks' for clearing up the matter of 'Miles Mathis, Truther or Something Else?'
allancw
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: July 18th, 2011, 1:54 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby brianv on August 29th, 2016, 6:59 pm

I'll answer for myself, this is an easy one.

brianv is brianv and he never heard of the alleged "MM" until brought up here...as a complete distraction, I might add. Which is why I asked for evidence of it's existence. And if...IF it does exist I couldn't give a rat's arse about him or his renaissance flair.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3849
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby Seneca on August 29th, 2016, 10:18 pm

allancw » 29 Aug 2016, 18:59 wrote:(I just tried to post this and was informed that there had been another post while I was writing. And guess what it is? Seneca repeating his question about music in my video, plus some other misdirection from the topic at hand. Come on, guys! How f-ing transparent can you get? I'm starting to get cranky.)


The question about the music on the video you linked to came from Kham, not me. I repeated it since you hadn't replied and then added a few of my own. I agree these questions (and your answers) should best be moved to another topic but I am not a moderator.

You may be right about MM. I am not a writer so your numbers don't tell me much.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 420
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby allancw on August 29th, 2016, 11:52 pm

Seneca,

Sorry for the mix up re who first posted the question about the music. And of course you are right: it's totally possible that the Sikh event never really happened. As you say, I posted it some years ago. A lot of my early stuff is now dated in that way -- like the O'Neill essay, which refers to the WTC flights as if they really existed.

Good Points all around. However, I'm sorry that the numbers I came up with (MM's output, etc.) don't mean much to you. The silence and the misdirection here since I posted the numbers indicate that quite a few of the CF posters do understand what they mean and for whatever reason are choosing to not deal with the implications. You might think about this.
allancw
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: July 18th, 2011, 1:54 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby pov603 on August 30th, 2016, 9:51 am

Not wishing to be confrontational allancw, but [for example] William Shakespeare may well be an 'imaginary' figure, but his writings exist for others to read into them as they will.
The same goes for MM.
You are assuming that he is writing and researching at the same time but possibly, over many years previously, MM had already done a lot of the research and only later decided to write/edit his works.
MM could be plagiarizing for all we know or else be the 'spokesperson' for a cabal of writers/researchers who have already written/researched the works.
Wouldn't it be better to dissect what it is he says and extract those items one is, or is not, in agreement with basing the decision upon ones own facts?
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 705
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 9:02 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby Seneca on August 30th, 2016, 11:49 am

allancw » 30 Aug 2016, 00:52 wrote:Seneca,

Sorry for the mix up re who first posted the question about the music. And of course you are right: it's totally possible that the Sikh event never really happened. As you say, I posted it some years ago. A lot of my early stuff is now dated in that way -- like the O'Neill essay, which refers to the WTC flights as if they really existed.

Good Points all around. However, I'm sorry that the numbers I came up with (MM's output, etc.) don't mean much to you. The silence and the misdirection here since I posted the numbers indicate that quite a few of the CF posters do understand what they mean and for whatever reason are choosing to not deal with the implications. You might think about this.

No problem Allan and thanks for your reply.
Based on a little research I would say that writing 1500 words a day is exceptional* but not impossible. Why didn't you count his science papers, because you can see the dates here: http://milesmathis.com/updates.html ?

Image

Image

Image

I suppose these numbers are words per working day.
source: http://writerswrite.co.za/the-daily-wor ... -authors-1

other links that came up:

Guest Post: How I Went From Writing 2,000 Words a Day to 10,000 ...
Stephen King's 20 Tips for Becoming a Frighteningly Good Writer : I cut my TV time to one show per day and then read for two hours instead.The result? My creativity exploded. I went from writing 1,000 words per day to pumping out over 2,000 words per day in the same amount of time.
How to write 10,000 words a day | The Thesis Whisperer

*The person Miles Mathis never claimed that he wasn't exceptional, on the contrary.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 420
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby Flabbergasted on August 30th, 2016, 4:50 pm

allancw » August 29th, 2016, 7:52 pm wrote:I'm sorry that the numbers I came up with (MM's output, etc.) don't mean much to you. The silence and the misdirection here since I posted the numbers indicate that quite a few of the CF posters do understand what they mean and for whatever reason are choosing to not deal with the implications.

That´s a pretty rash conclusion to draw just because you are not getting instant feedback. Misdirection? Lack of understanding? Refusal to deal with the implications? You must be mistaking CF for some other place.

How about giving people a little time to ruminate on your hypothesis? There are many dots to connect and possible scenarios to consider. This way we also avoid cluttering threads with useless Youtube-like comments. In fact, the latter is one of the distinguishing marks of CF.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 619
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby allancw on August 30th, 2016, 6:31 pm

There we go. Actually dealing with the issue at hand! Thanks.

First: yes, I could have counted MM's listed physics papers from 2016, but my impression is that his book on 'The Standing Errors in Physics' -- a mammoth project -- is ongoing, so we don't know when he wrote what. But still, if we count his listed physics papers for 2016 we are up to 417,000 words for eight months. If we round it off and forget the book (quite an assumption!) let's give MM's output at 2,000 words a day. Every day. No days off. No days doing just art. Etc.

(Some of the following was also suggested by my anonymous contact, who has a PhD in linguistics and 100% agrees with the extreme improbability of a human doing what MM claims he does. This is just based on word output. There are other clues that point to MM being a group...)

None of the writers in the chart are writing non-fiction analyses based on oodles of research. They mostly write fiction. The research is in their imagination (or the bottom of their bottle). I wrote my novel Cosmic Banditos in six weeks, long hand. It flowed out that fast because IMO the story was 'already there,' waiting. Fiction is completely different. These writers are all fiction, I believe. I think Crighton was pulling our legs with his 10,000 words per day count. He's credited with about 30 books. He died young but if we round off his writing life to 30 years (as a writer I suggest you don't bring up scripts)... let's see now... one book a year... if we divide by...

2. This is important so I'll semi-repeat: These figures are for days they write! Few of them mention how many days off they take, vacations, etc. (Going to the beach with a gf, say....) All of these people write for a living. They have a monetary incentive to be super-productive. And of course -- it's worth another repeat -- none of them claim to be dedicated visual artists and ground breaking physicists, the latter assuming many hours of READING, plowing through peer-reviewed papers and so forth, aside from the ridiculous amount of reading (with a lot of dead ends) and research for 'history' essays.

(I dislike arguing these points because it makes this look like there is really a case for MM being a complete one man operation, a claim he makes often, and which, if untrue, IMO means we have to assume he is DISHONEST. For me, that would be that. He's working for the other side.

3. The writers in the chart all have publishers and therefore editors, and so we can presume that their effective published word count drops after editing. (Crighton claims 10,000 words a day and pubbed one book A YEAR.) So what an author reports as his/her raw word count is very different from their finished products. True for me, true for every author. Your word count for Mathis is finished products. My friend comments: 'Seneca is comparing apples and oranges in every dimension.' I would also point out that - aside from Crighton's absurd wordage claim (one book a year?) -- the average for these successful writers is little more than 1,000 words a day.

It would do us all good to read the writers' comments, such as they are; if we do so IMO we'll see that the chart proves MY point. Notice Forsythe's comment (I can't cut and paste from the chart): 'But it's the research that takes the time.' Burn that into your heads, folks, keeping in mind that Forsythe is a FICTION writer. And still he talks about research. Apples and oranges.

There are many 'tells' in MM's essays. I can't find the quote but I can paraphrase -- this jumped out at me. Somewhere, and I'll try to find the exact quote, MM points out that his writing style is consistent and he makes the usual amount of typos. No matter the context, this is certainly not something I would observe about my own writing. As far as I know, no one else has brought up MM's output as an issue, although this quote may have been in response to a 'committee' accusation. Still, this is the sort of odd defensiveness that equals a red flag; I suspect the committee works hard to keep the writing 'consistent'. So they couldn't help but bring it up; they are proud of themselves.

This is from my anon buddy, who agrees that MM is a group, almost certainly a govt psy op of some sort:

But there were other clues. I am one who changes the subject line of an email thread to match the most current content. What I noticed in the much back-and-forth was that the responses from him to my latest email did not match its subject line, but came from a subject line in different places from earlier in the course of the correspondence. Curiously, his replies never contained the text of my email. It was a challenge sometimes to match his replies to the correct earlier message from me. It was, in other words, exactly what one might expect if the reply process were being farmed out to different people on a committee, who conferred offline about what to say but then wrote back individually. Also, the terseness of his email style (in contrast to the verbosity of his essays) makes it harder to detect a difference in voices at the other end of the modem.

It's also hard to forget that 'starving artist' MM sacrificed $400 so as not to be in the same room with me. (I know: I'm leaving myself open here, no?)

Look, I welcome the dissection of MM's essays on a case by case basis. There is a huge amount of valuable, even groundbreaking stuff here; this is why I am doing this. Providing valuable info is what a LH (limited hangout) is all about. My mind is blown by some of MM's stuff. BUT. But what is he up to? I have theories but for now I'll just point out a blatant dishonesty in MM's JFK essay (that essay may be a vital part of his agenda). We all know about how MM puts up photos from an old movie and claims for a few paragraphs that they are from November 22. Then he says, 'Turns out that... etc.', admitting they are meaningless. Well, I found a guy who got a screen shot of that essay when it was first posted: The 'Turns out that...etc.' WAS NOT THERE. In other words, MM screwed up and blatantly lied in order to mislead. When someone busted him, he went back and added the 'Turns out...'

Here's the link: http://www.cabaltimes.com/2015/06/29/jfk-faked-death/

Scroll down to 'Pierce Scrim's comment then to his drop box link. I had trouble reading the drop box screen shots but if we give Scrim the benefit of the doubt... that's about it for MM, IMO.

One more thing re the JFK essay (among many). It's at http://mileswmathis.com/barindex2.pdf

Scroll down to Page 14. the photo of Ruby about to shoot Oswald. Notice the hanging mic. Here is what MM has to say about the photo:

'See a problem there? How about that microphone hanging down from the rafters? Don't you think it
is suspicious that this scene was pre-miced, since it was supposed to be unpredicted and spontaneous?
Don't you think it is suspicious that two separate cameras from two separate angles just happened to
capture this unpredictable event? And where is this second cameraman supposed to be, hanging from
the ceiling? Either that or he is twelve feet tall. Also, this is supposed to be in a parking garage in the
basement of Dallas Police Station. There is a white car right in front of these guys. What basement is
lit like this? Look at the shadows cast by the people as well as the shadow cast by the hanging
microphone. There are powerful lights set up in front of these people. They are not lit from above, as
you would expect in such a place. They are lit strongly from in front, so there were powerful lights set
up on this scene. This is indication it was staged.'

Okay. This is very, very strange. MM brags about what a great photog he is. Really? Even a not-great photog will tell you that this photo is lit by the photog's camera flash, not by big H-wood lights. And somehow, the great MM completely misses the implications of the hanging mic: There is no hanging mic in the videos of that scene. This is outright proof that they did multiple takes, i.e, the 'shooting' was staged. How could MM not realize this? But wait. Something else MM should have noticed, given his constant bragging about his photo analysis abilities: the hanging mic is lit from the side (see its shadow), not from the front (the photog's flash). Which means that this tasty bit of 'evidence' was PASTED in; it's phony.

Cutting to the chase: MM knew very well all of the above but wanted SOMEONE ELSE notice the hanging mic and its misleading 'implications'. In fact, good ol' Ed Chiarini brings it up in a video on the subject -- but Ed fails to mention that the mic is pasted in.

Pasted in? Why? To indirectly support the notion that the assassination was a fraud. To very indirectly support the idea that JFK is the real bad guy, not George H W Bush and Co.

Talk about tangled webs being weaved!

But I'm doing my own misdirection here, aren't I? Replies to this can now easily avoid the real point, or muddy the waters with examples of writers who write a book a week or whatever. Although 'he' has little to worry about -- no one pays attention to my ramblings -- my point is that MM IS a psy op.

I've worn myself out for now. Later.
allancw
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: July 18th, 2011, 1:54 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby allancw on August 30th, 2016, 7:28 pm

Flabbergasted, I get your point but see... i've learned to really be on the lookout for NLP/misdirection, and I care not where it comes from. I find it, I assume something's up. On August 25th, a full five days ago I posted:

'Then I did some counting and pretty much... this is only a slight exaggeration... came to the conclusion that Miles is writing about as fast as I can read, at least this year. I believe I counted 53 essays since the first of the year, some of which essays are actually short-book length, and keep in mind I'm NOT counting his physics stuff or his art work. And of course, we have the research inherent in the essays...'

Next day I did my word count. Hoi says

'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 ...'

Then Hoi launches into nearly 500 words on MM's art, claiming that his critique 'added to the puzzle' or some such. Sorry but one thing I know when I see it is purposeful misdirection. You want to see Hoi's essay as something else, fine.

And, as mentioned, with the 'cousin' reference THAT WAS THAT, re my numerical observations. Five days around here is a long time. Or are you suggesting that everyone was deep in research? (Yes, it appears that Seneca was doing research. So you have me there. But I suspect you guys are pretty quick with the googling... five days? And no one agrees with me? No one?)

Everyone says he 'follows the evidence wherever it leads,' but I try to actually do it. Hoi being second in the order of things only to Simon himself (who was off to the beach for a few days...), I have to at least seriously entertain the notion that, like MM, CF is a psy op (not everyone, obviously!).

If anyone is offended by this... I dunno what to say... I just call 'em as I see 'em... that I could be wrong is an understatement.
allancw
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: July 18th, 2011, 1:54 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby Flabbergasted on August 30th, 2016, 8:21 pm

allancw » August 30th, 2016, 3:28 pm wrote:Five days around here is a long time.

Yes, if you are single, unemployed, retired or a paid troll.

allancw » August 30th, 2016, 3:28 pm wrote:Or are you suggesting that everyone was deep in research?

You are underestimating the CF membership.

allancw » August 30th, 2016, 3:28 pm wrote:And no one agrees with me? No one?

I agree that your observation regarding MM´s prolificacy is very relevant and deserves to be explored further. There, I said it. Now please continue your investigation.

allancw » August 30th, 2016, 3:28 pm wrote:I have to at least seriously entertain the notion that, like MM, CF is a psy op...

Don´t let your paranoia get the best of you.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 619
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby allancw on August 30th, 2016, 11:10 pm

If I were 'paranoid' I might answer: 'Continue my investigation'? Is that your advice? Keep investigating even after I've answered the question at hand? Yes, Keep everyone 'investigating'!

Along similar lines: I just finished MM's essay on Dylan. Now I have not checked a single source or quote for veracity. Okay? I admit that. But I'm going to assume that 90% of what MM writes is true and correct. If this is the case, had I written that essay, I'd consider a year's worth of my writing life to have been well spent. Perhaps you get my drift.

Oh, and thanks for actually dealing with the material in my last post. You know, the important stuff. Otherwise, I might have to bring up 'misdirection' again, chalk up another example of it, and so forth.
allancw
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: July 18th, 2011, 1:54 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby brianv on August 30th, 2016, 11:49 pm

I will take my leave of this discussion, without the simple question of whether MM actually exists, having being answered.

My 0.02c is that "Lame Sim Shit" is the product of University College, Cork. Ireland.

Good day.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3849
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby simonshack on August 31st, 2016, 3:05 pm

allancw wrote:
Everyone says he 'follows the evidence wherever it leads,' but I try to actually do it. Hoi being second in the order of things only to Simon himself (who was off to the beach for a few days...), I have to at least seriously entertain the notion that, like MM, CF is a psy op (not everyone, obviously!).

If anyone is offended by this... I dunno what to say... I just call 'em as I see 'em... that I could be wrong is an understatement.


Offended? No, Allan - just a tad confused & worried as to exactly how your brain functions nowadays. Why on Earth would you now "seriously entertain the notion that, like MM, CF is a psy op"? Is it because this forum's readership hasn't granted you a unanimous standing ovation for your 'groundbreaking discovery' that MM might be a disinfo clown / or cointelpro team? Sheesh - it's not like this thread has been praising MM's writings as if they were the Sacred Gospel of Truth. In fact, far from it: my very first post on page 1 of this thread, for instance, pointed out the utter absurdity of MM being an avid, daily follower of Alex Jones and his INFOWARS trash-terror site:

"INFOWARS: Not the corporate media. I visit it every day."
http://mileswmathis.com/link.html
If you go to that link, you'll see that 'MM' has now deleted that astonishing statement. Funny, eh?

I clearly remember that as I first stumbled upon the Alex Jones character several years ago, it took me about 10min (or perhaps max 1 day) to decide that he was a total (unfunny) clown catering to the boneheads of this world. How someone with the self-declared intellect / genius as MM could possibly have been - at any stage of his adulthood - a daily visitor of the farcical INFOWARS site (while calling it "Not the corporate media") is, all by itself, beyond absurd (what with A-Jones regularly getting airtime on corporate TV networks). And no, I won't buy (from the MM entity) the old and worn out, standard 'excuse' oft submitted by your average Joe - i.e. : "Oh well, I was young and stoopid back then - but at least Alex Jones opened my eyes to the existence of evil conspiracies in this world"...

If you, Allan, think that the best evidence for MM being a 'psy op' is constituted by his (its) vast /seemingly over-prolific output, fine. Some may agree with that - and some won't. But why whine about the response you're getting from this forum's membership?... To the point where you now "seriously entertain the notion that this place is a psy op too"? :rolleyes: I'd say that this tells me more about your own 'seriousness' than anything else.

So what's your problem, Allan? Is this forum's output too prolific? Or are we, on the contrary, too lazy / or timid when it comes to expose phony 'truthers'? I wouldn't think so. In fact, I almost regret having spent far too much of my time over the years exposing the countless clowns & rats surrounding our noble and valiant efforts - just check out this forum's "Truthers and Shills" section to see what I mean: viewforum.php?f=20 Has it been worth the trouble? Perhaps yes, perhaps no - and I can partly understand your current obsession with the bizarre MM person / entity. Now, if you think this (to expose MM as a fraud) is a matter of life or death, why don't you just take a pleasure-trip to New Mexico with your camper and dog - and knock on his door (if it exists)? See, this is what I keep telling (the interesting sort of)folks who doubt of my own existence - and many have done just that over the years. And yes, my invite to you still stands for the coming 15th 9/11 Hoax Anniversary party at my house. I can't extend this invite to international allcomers this year (as I'll have a full house of mostly Italian friends) - but I may still be able to put up another 2 or 3 couch-surfing guests flying in from abroad (so let me know, anyone - contact me by e-mail). Oh, and btw... I have never (as a matter of principle - and in spite of living on a shoe-string) charged any of my stayover guests one single penny for the - uh - 'privilege' of meeting / and talking with me in person. ^_^
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6342
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby allancw on August 31st, 2016, 4:42 pm

Simon,

Coincidentally, I just now sent an email that on two levels deals with your post. The first paragraph is the operative one:

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

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

So what have we got? People who trusted MM are now either unsure of him and his info and hence will be more confused than ever or will ignore me via denial. Either way, no problem. (I emailed my acquaintance Steve Crothers - a brilliant mathematician who has debunked black holes etc and is a figure at Electric Universe. MM has posted his work in the Science section. Steve wrote back saying he doesn't care if MM is 'a creation' or whatever as long as he promotes Steve's work. Depressing, no? Btw, I don't believe Steve is another mole.)

But in spite of the above I don't regret the time spent. I'm not out to 'save the world' through exposes, etc. I realized how futile that is a long time ago. I just want to know How The World Really Works, no matter how utterly frightening/depressing/etc. the answers are. (If I can embarrass a few lower level moles along the way, that's good too.)

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

Also, the very existence of MM and his essays tells us something important, aside from the fear/confusion mentioned. Not sure what that is yet but I'm working on it.

allan

I wouldn't give up on CF. A lot of hints are to be found there as well. (That the movie September Clues is likely part of the psy op is very interesting as well. In a sense, Simon does give the game away with his 'nobody died' riff -- which discredits the whole fake imagery meme that is actually very important.)

I'm pretty sure JFK was assassinated that day. That essay may have been an important aspect of the MM op. Think about who it lets off the hook, plus the confusion and doubt it creates.

#

That basic email went out to the two CF members who contacted me privately. (Since I had the same thing to say to both I wrote one email for both.) For what it's worth, they both pretty much agree with me.

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

As I say, I could be wrong on all this (MM and CF) but I've been bugged ever since you let Richard Grove off the hook, having had him cornered.

I think that's about it for this thread.... (As you're probably thinking, It really would have been better to stay silent, at the bch with gf or whatever)

(Oh, just what would be accomplished by paying MM a visit in NM? If a 50-something year old guy answered the door with a paintbrush in his hand and a Mac humming in the background... just what would that MEAN?)
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 1 guest