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.