Reading this thread since Allan chimed in has been like watching a train wreck in slow motion. I don't have time or patience to go through and quote the text I'm replying to, but here are my thoughts on various topics in the last few pages of posts:
1. As has been mentioned, earlier in this thread Gopi vouched for Miles (met in person, befriended). But what seems to have been overlooked is that Simon vouched for Gopi (met in person, befriended). Since I'm more than 95% sure Simon is legit, that is enough for me to believe that Miles is both real and legit. I would assign a 95% probability in that belief. (I remember seeing somewhere a remark by the guy who started wikispooks saying that he likes to assign probabilities to his belief in conspiracy-related things, since the grounds are shifting all the time). I think 95% is about as certain as I can be about anything conspiracy-related.
2. About the issue of where all the disappeared people go. I don't think you really need a special enclave, although there most likely is one. Miles likes to point out that most people aren't good at recognizing people. They both don't pay enough attention and have poorly honed visual acuity. So hiding people away is hardly necessary. Changing the hair color is about all you need to do, and maybe for the most famous some minor plastic surgery. The Tate and OJ papers offer good examples of this. Most of the people weren't that famous to begin with. This would also explain the sightings of Elvis or Jim Morrison, etc. over the years. Though since those actually make it to the MSM, they are likely false reports meant to discredit those who do have real sightings.
3. For whatever reason, brianv seems to really dislike Miles. But as for pictures of him, there are plenty on his site. http://mileswmathis.com/pics3.html
The pictures do not appear sim-like to me. And although brian quickly dismisses Gopi's "sighting" of Miles, he forgets or doesn't realize that Simon vouched for Gopi. Miles's bio and websites offer many opportunities to assess the 'reality' of his existence. To take one example, he says went to London in 1990 on the Basil Alkazzi award. And sure enough, the Alkazzi award site lists him as a recipient in 1989: http://basilhalkazziawardusa.com/
. Proof? No, but I believe there is much more evidence suggesting that Miles is a real person than not. Whether he has been chosen as a mouthpiece for an intel committee is I guess another matter. But I think it would be preposterous in light of all the evidence to say he doesn't exist.
4. In response to Allan's claims. Allan has done a much better job of discrediting himself than I could. So kudos for that. I think you've made it abundantly clear that Miles made the right decision in declining your attendance at his conference. $400 isn't much to a man with principles. Your posts read like sour grapes (it's either that or deliberate cointelpro). As for your claim about 1500 words/day. You wrote that you counted his papers in the past year, which totaled 362,00 words. When you said that averaged out to about 1500 words/day, well it was clear you were either stupid or being deliberately dishonest. How does 362,000/365 magically become 1500? It's actually just under 1,000. I guess you didn't count weekends or something? Why not? Do you think Miles has any need to take the weekends off? If we view what he does as a passion project rather than a day job, then there's no reason to think that he takes any time off. He probably stays up late working on his papers when he's in the thick of something juicy. I know I did when I was working on the Gandhi paper he published on his site.
Anyway, I did my own word count, since you obviously can't be relied on (either due to incompetence or duplicity). I downloaded all of his papers from the last year, starting with his paper on 8/31/15 on John Reed. I did not download papers written by contributors. I did not download updates from papers that were published prior to that date. And when a paper published during the past year was updated, I only downloaded the updated version. I also downloaded papers from his science site that were published since 8/31/15. Papers published on both his art/conspiracy site and his science site were downloaded only once. I then uploaded the papers to the website http://wordy.com/word-count-tool
. The numbers I get are different from yours:
Total new papers published since 8/31/15: 67, of which 8 were exclusive to his science site
Total words published since 8/31/15: 476,171, of which 31,764 were exclusive to his science site
So my word count is actually quite a bit larger than yours.
Now, 476,171 / 365 = 1,305. So about 1300 words per day.
1200 words in double spaced 12-point Time New Roman font is about 5 pages of text. So he's writing about 5 pages per day, on average. I agree that's a very fast pace requiring an enormous amount of dedication, energy and focus. But hardly impossible for one person.
Of course this is just an estimate. The word count might be a bit off. Another program I used seemed to come to a somewhat different count, but it was an evaluation copy and I couldn't count all the papers with it. But it wasn't too far off. I could also have added the word count for the updates he added to papers published before 8/31/15. But I don't think that would add to more than a couple thousand extra words. Also, I counted 365 days, but his last paper was published 8/22, so perhaps I should have counted 356 days instead (or 1337 words/day). In any case, these changes are relatively insignificant and do not affect the conclusion.
Now, I agree with you that the research for the papers can take a lot of time. But the 5 pages/day is an average. He could easily do 3 days of research then spend a day writing up a 6000 word paper (the average length of his papers, BTW, is 7107). As someone who pulled many all-nighters during college writing 15-page term papers from scratch, I can assure you this is definitely well within the realm of possibility. Also don't forget that most of his research appears to be through wikipedia and, more recently, genealogy websites. He appears to occasionally reads books and other background material, but I think it would actually be easy to overestimate the amount of time he spends actually doing the research. I know from my experience that it actually took me a hell of a lot of time to research and put together my Gandhi paper. But that's me. I looked through a lot of sources and was kind of learning as I go. I think I'm also a bit more meticulous and careful than Miles. I am also filled with self-doubt as a general rule, which tends to slow a person down. Miles does not suffer from that problem in the slightest. Actually just the opposite. I also have a full-time job, two kids and wife, so I wasn't able to devote much time to it on a daily basis, unlike Miles.
As for his art, I think it's a rather arbitrary assumption to assume that he spends 1/2 his time painting. From what I can tell, Miles is someone who follows his passion. In the 1980s and 1990s he was painting like mad. Then in the 2000s he got into science and wrote like crazy. His newest passion is the conspiracy stuff. And you can see that as he has written more on those topics, his science writing has tapered off considerably. It seems 2013 was a pivotal year for him in this respect, when he realized that Modern art was a CIA creation. I've never met the man in person, so I'm only drawing these conclusions based on his writing. I have no idea how much time he spends painting now, but I doubt it's very much. I believe he does teach art classes, though. And probably takes commissions for portraits, etc. But how often? I'm guessing not that frequently.
In short, I think your claim that it isn't humanly possible to have the kind of output that Miles has had simply doesn't hold up. It is very impressive, for sure, but hardly impossible. That someone is capable of being an accomplished artist (Hoi's objections notwithstanding), revolutionizing physics and unleashing such an enormous avalanche of conspiracy research is harder to believe. But I do believe it. I think Miles possesses a rare intelligence. In fact I would classify him as a genius. That doesn't mean he's right about everything. And of course his personality is a completely different issue and one which doesn't really have much relevance to the question of whether he is real and legit. I will say for the record that I completely disagree with his stance regarding Simon and CF. But I chalk that up to personality issues. Just because he's a genius doesn't mean he's infallible. I said earlier in this thread that he has come to very mistaken conclusions about me, so I know from personal experience that he is far from infallible. Ditto with his earlier Alex Jones admiration. I have also had numerous e-mail exchanges, and I agree that he can be extremely terse. But I just assume he's got better things to do than spend his time chatting with people he doesn't know via e-mail.
Anyway, I think I've spent enough of my own precious time and energy defending the man. If you want to tell me that makes it clear I'm a shill for TPTB, so be it. If you want to tell me your new anonymous friend has scientifically determined that I'm actually 6 different people writing this post, go for it. Hell, I might be wrong. But I'm 95% sure I'm not.
By the way, this post is a little over 1,700 words long. I started writing it and doing the research for it a little over 3 hours ago. Not too shabby.