Discussing Miles W. Mathis

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

Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby Wes on November 6th, 2015, 7:46 pm

jumpy64 wrote:Anyway, I must tell you one thing: it shows that you've been reading him a lot, because you seem to have absorbed even his writing style. To me you're starting to sound like him ;)

No fault in that, though. He's a very effective and original writer, with a pretty recognizable style (although now I'm afraid I might confuse him with you :blink: ), and I admire this quality of his myself.

So I guess you'll take my observation as a compliment.


Or a cleverly veiled slight. ;)

Maybe that is why his writings resonated with me so much. He writes the way that I think. Also, from what I understand, he and I share a few favorite authors.
Wes
Member
 
Posts: 15
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 6:25 pm

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

Postby starfish prime on November 7th, 2015, 5:53 am

jumpy64 wrote:Dear Wes, Mathis makes a lot of assumptions in his non-scientific writings (which often are admittedly "opinion pieces"), he doesn't just share things he is sure and has definitive proof of. And I think he's absolutely right in doing so. After all, how could it be otherwise? There will never be "names and photos of those in control", of course.

He's also very sharp and perceptive in his assumptions, so why doesn't he make any about who may hold the reins of intelligence? He doesn't even say "I can't imagine who might control the secret services". He just seems to want the reader to think that they are indipendent and all-powerful agencies, and I don't find that believable (nor logical) in the least.

Moreover, Mathis' perceptiveness becomes blindness only in one direction, it seems. He mentions the Mossad only once, and just in passing (after my observation), and he does the same with the state of Israel (if memory serves); he thinks the "Protocols" are a fake written by the aristocracy, and he denounces media fakery but never even mentions who admittedly controls the media. For him the Jews are only merchants and financiers, nothing more. They seem to have no special role in the creation of what he denounces as "the stolen century" (referring to the 20th century). Their prominent role in (mis)shaping our culture in that century and at least the previous one through psychoanalisis, Marxism, Franz Boas' anthropology, the Frankfurt School and so on (just to give a few notable examples) is totally ignored, despite tons of easily available evidence.

If you think he's just being cautious because he's not sure who's in control and wants to avoid spewing conjecture (which he actually and admittedly does most of the time), I beg to differ.


I have been pretty suspicious of Mathis ever since I read his article suggesting that Mark Staycer is John Lennon, which I did not find convincing. Of course, there is always the possibility that a genuine researcher simply reaches the wrong conclusions, or ignores investigating a certain issue due to social stigma. For example, I had mentioned David McGowan in the thread "Hiding in Plain Sight," who has mysteriously never addresses Zionism, Jews or the Holocaust. This man, who essentially woke me up to the Apollo moon hoax and the Boston smoke bombing, writes about "military intelligence" infiltration into the media, and Los Angeles specifically. Why would he never mention the Jews? How is it possible that someone who can so thoroughly deconstruct the Apollo moon hoax could actually believe in the Holocaust fable? Has he simply avoided looking into it? Is he afraid of losing his already small readership? I asked McGowan not too long ago if he still rejected the "no plane" theory, and he responded by simply saying he "didn't know what to think at this point" (paraphrase). Admittedly, he has been apparently suffering from a virulent cancer, but I would imagine he would have come across such evidence by now... A frustrating aspect of McGowan's writings is that they sometimes seem to be a mere accumulation of strange facts without a clear thesis bringing them together. Mathis, on the other hand, seems to generally make sensational claims without properly supporting them. He described their difference in his article "On Chemtrails and other topics":

You see, McGowan admits a lot of nasty stuff, seeming to take his reader way out into the wilderness with him. He then leads that reader off on the wrong track: a sexy track, but still the wrong one. He is playing the part Mae Brussell played in previous decades. But we can see that Barrett isn't comfortable with that kind of misdirection, and he pulls McGowan back to the mainstream misdirection. For instance, Barrett brings up Jim Morrison, who McGowan is partially exposing as a fake. McGowan admits Morrison was the son of the Navy admiral at the Gulf of Tonkin false flag event. That should lead you to the right answer about the Morrisons, but McGowan doesn't take you there. He takes you halfway and diverts you.

http://mileswmathis.com/chem2.pdf

hoi.polloi wrote:He's also not very good at painting. To be honest, it looks worse than a lot of student work. I think he might have been 'selected' for the role he is taking because to most people his basic hand-eye coordination equates to "good artist" rather than an actually important vision/direction. On the other hand, he is equipped with a somewhat believable excuse: he is just a competitive person and doesn't like to admit faults, which is why he feels comfortable boasting about dull art. Maybe I am just being too subjective. It's not like most artists I know, who are actually hyper-competitive but would be ashamed of boasting about unsuccessful art. Miles seems content to and I am not sure that fits the online character he ... is? He plays?

I am not saying I know for certain that he is a suspicious character, but I am just asking the question because it seemed to me like he was copying the analysis style of Simon's and mine. I am not saying we should always expect researchers to be like us, but his appearance feels slightly insinuated into our research. Whether he did that on his own or was directed — or maybe, we just somehow "overlooked" him for some time — I just don't know. But we have the freedom to ask!


Hoi polloi, I find it interesting that you think he was insinuating into your research. Apparently Dave McGowan thought the same. For example, McGowan came out with his first article about the Lincoln assassination on January 24, 2014; Mathis followed with his article claiming that the Lincoln assassination was a "manufactured event" on February 19, 2014. Here is what McGowan had to say about Mathis on his Facebook page:
So someone posted a link to this, the latest offering from relatively new disinformation-peddler Miles Mathis, in the comments section of a previous post. Leaving aside the fact that he drops my name more than a dozen times, after apparently deciding to attack me more directly than he has in the past, what I want to focus on here is Mathis' self-importance and his ignorance of the subjects he writes about. Near the end of this particular diatribe, Mathis makes the following observation: "In closing, I would like to point you to several other strange things I noticed recently. Since I published my paper exposing the Lincoln assassination as another manufactured event, we have seen a curious uptick in books and cover stories promoting the old stories. Smithsonian magazine recently had a cover story on the assassination, driving home all the old nails. Lincoln is also on the cover of this month's National Geographic, for no good reason. And Bill O'Reilly was hired to write (or more likely front) a book on the assassination. This book is currently being heavily promoted in all the mainstream bookshops, including airport bookstalls."

Mathis would clearly like readers to believe that the mainstream focus on Lincoln was inspired by his completely nonfactual treatment of the assassination, because there clearly was no other "good reason" for Lincoln to be in the news. I guess it never occurred to the self-proclaimed genius that the very day he wrote this bullshit piece, April 15, 2015, was the 150th anniversary of the first acknowledged US presidential assassination. Amazing that someone who claims to have researched the event (almost exclusively through Wikipedia, where the vast majority of his 'research' is done) could be completely ignorant of that fact.

https://www.facebook.com/WeirdScenesInsideTheCanyon/posts/885845011438230

McGowan also made this longer post about Mathis, which I recommend people read in its entirety:

[...]The primary difference between the ‘work’ of Mathis and Goldbug on the one hand, and Faulists Tina Foster and Clare Kuehn on the other, is that Mathis and Goldbug like to show you photos that are clearly of two or more different people and then insist that they are actually all the same person, while Foster and Kuehn like to show you two different views of the same person and then insist that they are two different people.

As with the Faulists, Mathis likes to sprinkle in tantalizing details that suggest, among other things, intelligence agency control, but he is hoping that you don’t notice that none of those details lends any support to his central thesis that the Manson murders were faked and that nobody died and nobody went to prison.

https://www.facebook.com/WeirdScenesInsideTheCanyon/posts/804693419553390

So are these just two shills playing with each other? Or perhaps two independent researchers who happen to be extremely paranoid? I am personally inclined to believe that McGowan is genuine, and simply misguided by liberal propaganda; with Mathis, I am less certain...
starfish prime
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: August 3rd, 2015, 5:36 am

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

Postby Apache on November 7th, 2015, 12:40 pm

starfish prime wrote:For example, McGowan came out with his first article about the Lincoln assassination on January 24, 2014; Mathis followed with his article claiming that the Lincoln assassination was a "manufactured event" on February 19, 2014.


True. I found that intensely annoying when he did it.

starfish prime wrote:So are these just two shills playing with each other? Or perhaps two independent researchers who happen to be extremely paranoid? I am personally inclined to believe that McGowan is genuine, and simply misguided by liberal propaganda; with Mathis, I am less certain...


McGowan has merit but missed fakery for a very long time. Mathis has merit but isn't convinced of his own research. In his paper on the Tate murders, I made the following note about him:

"In this essay Mathis mentions Laurel Canyon but fails to mention the work done by Dave McGowan on this issue. He also fails to mention during another essay (on the Lincoln assassination) that McGowan did work on that topic before he did. His excuse for this is that he does not read anyone else's research. In later essays he mentions McGowan, proving that he does read other research."

Only after thoroughly investigating the Tate murders myself was I able to see that all the “dark theories” were also wrong and probably planted. That is to say, the alternative theories for these major tragedies also seem to be written by the spooks.


"probably planted" and "seem to be written by the spooks" indicates lack of conviction. This is because he has no proof that "all the dark theories were also wrong" and "written by the spooks". I'm not convinced by such language. If he isn't certain of his own writing, then neither am I :P

We are told that Mr. Spahn allowed the Manson family to move in rent-free in 1968.


http://herewomentalk.com/charles-manson ... od-history

In August of 1968, 80 year old George Spahn, in fragile health and nearly blind, allowed Charles Manson and the family to move onto the ranch rent free in exchange for labor. They fed the animals, did what little cleaning was done and kept Spahn fed.


Living "rent free" and "move onto the ranch rent free in exchange for labor" are two different things and I don't like truncated information like that. It's shoddy research at best, misdirection at worst.

He then comes up with total rubbish like this:

In this sense, Lookout Mountain can be seen as the importation of Goebbels Propaganda Machine into the US. Except that Lookout Mountain was much more successful at remaining a secret.


The above implies that the US had no propaganda prior to Goebbels' "big lie". Goebbels was writing about the propaganda of the British and the US, so there was no need to "import" "Goebbels Propaganda Machine" (with a missing apostrophe). In other essays Mathis has clearly heard of Bernays but he avoids going there. I see that as damage control.

This is not just a tenuous analogy, either, since at the same time Lookout Mountain was being built, the US was importing thousands of actual Nazis in what was called Operation Bloodstone.


Horror! Actual Nazis. What, as opposed to fake ones? It is at this point that I want to kick him in the pants. What evidence is there that the German scientists who went to the US were card-carrying members of the National Socialists Party or is everyone German in the 1940s automatically a Nazi in his mind?

His research isn't without merit. He points out the stupid pictures of the prison guards who are clearly wearing wigs, and the interior of the Tate mansion with a carpet that doesn't reach the wall, in opposition to what one would expect a home of a movie director to look like. He also points out that prisons don't allow long beards. I looked that up for myself and he's right, they don't. So, any picture with Manson in it, with him wearing a long beard, with a prison background is a fake. He should simply point out those kinds of things (which he's good at) and leave off banging on about the intelligence agencies as the only power group in town, as if we were all born yesterday.
Apache
Member
 
Posts: 168
Joined: October 22nd, 2015, 12:02 pm

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

Postby jumpy64 on November 7th, 2015, 2:32 pm

starfish prime wrote:So are these just two shills playing with each other? Or perhaps two independent researchers who happen to be extremely paranoid? I am personally inclined to believe that McGowan is genuine, and simply misguided by liberal propaganda; with Mathis, I am less certain...


Hi starfish prime. I was about to comment on your very interesting post, when I discovered that Apache beat me to it. Damn! :D

Seriously, Apache, I agree with most of your analysis, so I should thank you for saving me some time, I guess ;)

Referring to both of you guys' posts, ultimately I think that both Mathis and McGowan are "two shills playing with each other", as Starfish puts it (although in an interrogative way), but they're not "just" two shills, in the sense that they both have merits, as Apache points out.

You, Starfish, seem to prefer McGowan, while I prefer Mathis. For me the fact that McGowan "missed fakery for a very long time", like Apache says, is a huge limitation, while Mathis, at least, has a very good eye for spotting fakery, especially in his often brilliant photo-analysis (maybe because he's a painter, and a good one for me).

In fact, even in his "Facespook" writing that you linked to, Starfish, McGowan rightly exposes Mathis' sloppy geographical research on the Torrance area and such, together with some unfounded conclusions he draws from less than iron-clad assumptions, but he doesn't address the main, substantial difference between his take on the Manson murders and Mathis', i.e. that he believes they are real, while Mathis thinks they were faked. Actually, he just says:

Mathis likes to sprinkle in tantalizing details that suggest, among other things, intelligence agency control, but he is hoping that you don’t notice that none of those details lends any support to his central thesis that the Manson murders were faked and that nobody died and nobody went to prison.


Well, just three lines about the most fundamental point of the issue, after going on about other geographical and speculative details for many paragraphs? I find that quite suspicious on McGowan's part.

Also because I think that Mathis' "central thesis that the Manson murders were faked and that nobody died and nobody went to prison" happens to be correct, having verified myself too, as Apache did, that prisons don't allow long beards, and so any picture with Manson with a long beard against a prison background must be a fake.

And just as fake appear to be the pictures of the prison guards with wigs, those of the interior of the Tate mansion looking very different from what one would expect the home of a movie director to be like, and especially those of the "corpses", which look totally unconvincing and boarding on ridiculous, starting from the one in which Sharon Tate seems to be smiling :rolleyes:

This is basically what I find most unconvincing in McGowan's research on serial killers: in his book "Programmed to Kill", he offers a different, interesting perspective on the killings, but he seems to be totally on board with the fact that they are real, while I tend to agree more with Mathis when he says they were faked to scare the public. I particularly like what he says also in this paper about Ted Bundy and other serial killers being also fake.

At the end of the aforementioned paper, Mathis comes up with what I think is one of his best intuitions.

The government has been manufacturing tragedies year by year for decades, and we are now up to
several a month, just to keep the patient properly traumatized. It used to be that one fake serial killer
every couple of years would do the job, but in this as in everything else, the patient develops a
tolerance. After 911, the audience became more difficult to startle. In addition to your daily dose of
shootings, maulings, rapes, suicides, crashes and molestations (most of them also manufactured for
your viewing pleasure by the Intelligence agencies), you are now privy to at least one mass shooting or
bombing every two or three months. It was found that the serial killer story took too long to unwind, so
they ditched that. You don't get serial killers much anymore. It is mass shootings instead, since they
happen all at once. The American public no longer has the attention span required to follow a serial
killer. Think about that, please. Don't you think it is convenient that crazy murderers decided to quit
the serial thing and go in for the mass thing instead? So nice of them to change with the times,
scripting their madness to fit the demands of the media!

As Ted Bundy goes, so goes Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Kaczinski, David Berkowitz, Richard Ramirez,
Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Anders Breivik, and most of the other high-profile murderers.


This kind of very perceptive (and true, I think) observations is what I still like a lot in Mathis' work.

Like Apache says, I think Mathis should most of all

leave off banging on about the intelligence agencies as the only power group in town, as if we were all born yesterday.
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

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

Postby Thinktwice on November 8th, 2015, 2:21 am

Hi guys, I wanted to jump in here...

The more I think about it, the more those McGowan Facebook posts responding to Mathis are really damning evidence against McGowan, in my opinion. I'll tell you why.

I feel that Mathis expects his smart readers to go verify claims for themselves. That's why he often seems like he's "skipping steps" or "moving too fast"--because he will sometimes condense a lot of research into a small sentence, trusting that anybody who wants to verify it can do so the same way that he did.

That is in fact why Mathis uses sources like Wikipedia--it is the same reason that Simon often quotes from Wikipedia--it stands for the official mainstream view. It allows you to explain why the official story is wrong, and it gives you the materials from which you can build your argument--either to refute them or to circle those things "hidden in plain sight." It's a pretty common technique. McGowan does not score a point here.

Let's look at the Torrance, CA issue that McGowan has a problem with. First of all, it seems likely that Mathis is familiar with McGowan's Laurel Canyon work, as many of us are. It's possible that Mathis looked up McGowan and realized that he was from Torrance, and also went to El Camino College, which is the same exact college that several of the Laurel Canyon players went to. Another notable alumnus was Suge Knight, who owned the notorious exploitation hip-hop label that created the 'gangsta rap' image, leading to the stereotype that rap music is only about guns, drugs and loose women. The marketing of this music to black youngsters is not an accident, and the moral effects of those lyrics is not hard to determine. Just as Hollywood is used to create mainstream opinion, certain targeted music can affect thoughts and decision-making through subtle/underhanded word choices and lyrical messages. Again, something we mostly all agree on regarding Hollywood, the Beatles, etc.

Looking on Google Maps, we see that El Camino College is maybe 1 mile north of Torrance, and San Pedro is indeed just south of Torrance. It is approximately 13 miles from El Camino College to San Pedro, and you would drive through Torrance on the way. Torrance has hosted the Armed Forces Day Parade since 1960. San Pedro overlooks Long Beach, which is a busy seaport, and that means a security apparatus. Searching on Air Force, we find that there is a Los Angeles Air Force base about 2 miles north of Torrance in El Segundo as well as an Air Force Space And Missile Systems Center. There are recruiting centers for the Army, Navy and Air Force all over these areas. While not a lot of evidence, it isn't unfounded. I found 223rd Military Intelligence Battalion in Pasadena. Maybe Mathis had another link or tip. But his basic premise was that the military has a presence in these communities, and that seems to be true. Who can argue that post WWII suburban sprawl was constructed by the same industries that profited from the war? Who can argue that Los Angeles has long been a playground of these folks? As there are known military bases in the area, why is it so far-fetched to assume that a good number of military folks are living in this neighborhood and attending the nearby college? McGowan is again being disingenuous. Not a strong Mathis point, though.

McGowan said there was no evidence that Anger is a spook, as Mathis suggests. Well, you don't have to look very hard for evidence. Otherwise you have no explanation for Anger's runaway success as a filmmaker, and his continued fame. Anger's films are 'critically acclaimed' and were used in obscenity trials to create legislation. Apparently, the California Supreme Court ruled that Anger's film was indeed art. How many other film-makers have that distinction? I would agree with Mathis here, that Anger looks like a spook. Why can't McGowan agree with anything Mathis says? Sensitive subject I guess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fireworks_(1947_film)

Regarding McGowan's Lincoln assassination papers; in skimming them today, I realize I have read some of them previously. Sure, he makes many fine points about the inconsistencies in the trial, etc, as evidence of a high level conspiracy. But McGowan never questions either that Booth is the assassin or that Lincoln even died. He says that the assassination was only five days after the end of the war, but never questions the timing. He never sees the--in retrospect--obvious conclusion that Lincoln's role as president of the Union was finished, and the actor was allowed to exit the stage.

In response to starfish prime regarding the dates of the respective Lincoln pieces: when Mathis posted his piece on Feb 19, 2014, McGowan had only posted 2 parts of his Lincoln saga; McGowan had stated that "As we all know, Lincoln was assassinated," talked about all the enemies of Lincoln and how he has low approval ratings, how Lincoln used to walk around Washington unprotected, etc, etc. Excuse me, but McGowan hasn't gone anywhere yet, as of Feb 19, 2014. McGowan does question whether Lewis Paine attacked Secretary Seward--he says he doesn't believe it happened. OK, well, why do you believe the other assassination happened then, Dave?

So again, we do see McGowan is circling and highlighting the main outcome of the event, i.e. Lincoln was assassinated. We again see Mathis completely undermining the entire script by calling out fakery when he sees it--noticing that there is a lack of evidence of Lincoln's death, and in fact a lot of evidence against it. Before McGowan has time to wrap up his tale, Mathis sniped his story, and kind of stole his thunder. Perhaps that is why McGowan is so salty, and writes so sloppily in those Facebook posts.

Let's look at McGowan more closely. We find that McGowan published a piece on Sept 12, 2001, and he is supposed to have been one of the first to question the 9/11 story online. But the problem is his piece reads more like controlled opposition. He points out some questions and good points, but leads you away from the media fakery aspect. In fact, his is almost the blueprint for the standard "Alex Jones" or "Dylan Avery" take on the event. He talks about the horrors of the "crimes," wonders why the media talking heads aren't asking the questions, and never questioning the reality of the events or that the videos are faked.

https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/05/23/mcgowan-battles-cancer/:

In the final analysis, we must ask ourselves the following questions: Who had the means to get highly-trained commando teams onto four commercial aircraft flying out of three separate airports? Who had the ability to violate the Pentagon’s airspace, completely unmolested and unchallenged? What weapons were really used to commandeer those aircraft and who had the means to get them on the planes? Who had the ability to plan and execute such an ambitious, multi-pronged attack without the interference of the U.S. intelligence services? Who had the means to staff each of the four teams with at least one well-trained, and suicidal, pilot? Who had the means and opportunity to plant secondary explosive charges, if in fact these were used?
....
It is quite possible, indeed quite likely, that members of some ‘extremist’ group served as the foot soldiers of these attacks. ... It is also likely that these ‘terrorists’ were motivated by legitimately perceived grievances with the U.S. government. … Most of the participants probably did not know that they were embarking on suicide missions.


Right, Dave… Extremist groups… Highly trained commando teams… Without interference of U.S. intelligence…! And without the media, too, right, Dave?

Granted, it would be hard to know what the right questions were on 9/11. But Dave seems to be asking all the wrong questions. I must admit, I definitely wasn't asking the right questions on 9/12 either, but then again, I didn't have a piece published on the internet that day either. I don't think Mathis did. Dave McGowan did, and he is supposed to be an expert on "exposing the crimes of the elite" (his words: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/cancer.html). Well, in this case, he was a little bit off, wasn't he?
Thinktwice
Member
 
Posts: 18
Joined: March 12th, 2015, 5:46 pm

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

Postby starfish prime on November 8th, 2015, 11:34 am

Apache & jumpy64,

I am kind of ashamed to admit that at the time of my previous post I had not yet read Mathis' writing on the Manson murders. I have since done so, and am pretty much in agreement with you guys about the Tate murders/Manson trial being faked. That actually makes so much more sense! McGowan himself has commented on the strange "transition" from the serial killers of the late 60s-80s to the terrorists/spree killers of the 90s-present. If we assume that the latter are fake, why wouldn't the former likely be as well, especially considering that they would have been much easier to pull off? Are we to believe that they just suddenly shifted from a tactic of "Manchurian candidate" zombie assassins to one of media hoaxes? There was always something sketchy to me about the whole MK Ultra satanic ritual abuse/trauma-based mind control explanation of serial killings, however I still thought that there must be some truth behind it. But perhaps much of the "satanic panic" was simply a cover for this faked serial murder (or at least a parallel fear-mongering psyop). For example, this video of Lt. Col. Michael Aquino on Oprah is blatantly staged:


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

Why would an expert on Psychological Operations show up on the Oprah show in Dracula costume, and defend himself against a "former Satanist" claiming to have participated in human sacrifice (as well as Oprah herself)? It makes no sense, unless you consider that he is intentionally spreading the idea of "satanic ritual abuse" within the military. To quote Aquino's intro to a paper co-written by him and Col. Paul Valley, "From PSYOP to MindWar":

With the arising of the Internet in the 1980s, however, MindWar received an entirely unexpected – and somewhat comic- resurrection. Allusions to it gradually proliferated, with its “sinister” title quickly winning it the most lurid, conspiracy-theory reputation. The rumor mill soon had it transformed into an Orwellian blueprint for Manchurian Candidate mind control and world domination. My own image as an occult personality added fuel to the wildfire: MindWar was now touted by the lunatic fringe as conclusive proof that the Pentagon was awash in Black Magic and Devil-worship.


https://flowofwisdom.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/mindwar-mindwar_co_authored_by_michael-aquino.pdf

Thinktwice,

I agree with most of your points. McGowan does seem resentful that Mathis has put together certain pieces of the puzzle that he hadn't. Perhaps Mathis has access to insider information, allowing him to promptly "one up" McGowan at his own research, while then inserting various amounts of disinfo? Or maybe Mathis is simply McGowan's replacement? I certainly think there is room for speculation, but a statement such as "It now looks like all of San Pedro and most of Torrance and Laurel Canyon were intelligence communities" seems a little like a red herring to me.
starfish prime
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: August 3rd, 2015, 5:36 am

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

Postby Apache on November 8th, 2015, 11:58 am

Thinktwice wrote:Granted, it would be hard to know what the right questions were on 9/11. But Dave seems to be asking all the wrong questions. I must admit, I definitely wasn't asking the right questions on 9/12 either, but then again, I didn't have a piece published on the internet that day either. I don't think Mathis did. Dave McGowan did, and he is supposed to be an expert on "exposing the crimes of the elite" (his words: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/cancer.html). Well, in this case, he was a little bit off, wasn't he?


You make a lot of excellent points and thank you for the information surrounding Torrance. Most appreciated.

As you've brought McGowan's 9/11 pieces into the mix, I'd like to add my comments in support of yours. This derails from Miles Mathis, but will loop back around to him again.

I wasn't asking the right questions on 9/11 either. In hindsight, I can see why, but now that I have more information I have found it to be very useful going back over someone's original writings. (I came across McGowan in about 2011 and I've been reading him ever since.)

I went through his work recently during my investigation into the Naudet "first strike" footage and I came across the following, dated 16 September 2001:

although it seems a little odd that the first crash was recorded so graphically – as if someone was waiting for it, camera in hand (at least two people, actually, according to a British correspondent who claims to have seen footage on the BBC taken from a different angle). That footage, of course, has incalculable propaganda value.


I thought, huh? "seems a little odd"? He then doesn't bother going any further.

"as if someone was waiting for it, camera in hand" - doesn't bother going any further with this thought, simply accepts that someone was there, camera in hand. Remember, this is in relation to the "first crash", not the second one.

"at least two people, actually" - 2 people? I thought, is he mixing up the first crash with the second one by Evan Fairbanks and Gedeon Naudet? Had to be, otherwise why say "taken from a different angle"? There was only one piece of footage of the "first crash" known at that time - the "firefighter" one and even then there was only one angle. It was at least another 2 years before more fake footage of the "first strike" was released.

I thought if he's on about the Naudet "first strike" footage, then it had to have been seen by at least 16 September 2001, even if only by McGowan. I found that to be incredible, as not many people knew on 16 September that "first strike" footage even existed, never mind that a British correspondent had claimed to have seen that footage. Where was he getting his information from? And why was he mixing up the first strike with the second one? An innocent mistake?

I will now quote various things he's said over the years:

There are though the seemingly credible statements by family members of at least a few of the crash victims who have steadfastly maintained that they received calls from passengers aboard the flight informing them that an effort was about to be made to overpower the hijackers.


Another, Jeremy Glick, was quoted as telling his mother-in-law that "The men voted to attack the terrorists." The plane went down very soon after these conversations took place.


Really? He thought people voting to save their own lives wasn't ridiculous?

To be perfectly blunt, I can't think of too many things that would be more counterproductive than trying to convince people that they didn't see what the entire world is pretty sure it saw (i.e., planes crashing into tall buildings). The effect is the same as if, in the years following the Kennedy assassination, while skeptics were presenting the case for Kennedy having been shot from the front rather than from behind, a group of researchers suddenly began arguing that he wasn't actually shot at all!


How prescient of McGowan to plant doubts in 2004 that researchers would come along and question whether JFK was actually shot. In 2004 the people questioning the crash physics of 9/11 were also getting rather vocal. Gerard Holmgren, for one. McGowan trashing that research is a red flag. It's also worth noting that McGowan's website is called Centre for an Informed America (CIA). A joke? Yeah, really funny Dave.

Looping back round to Miles Mathis he says very little about 9/11, but what he does say shows that he knows that the event was bullshit. Funny that McGowan doesn't, even after doing a long (and frankly tedious) piece on the Boston Bombing event, suddenly flipping round and supporting fakery research, despite others having already been there and done that long before him. :blink:
Apache
Member
 
Posts: 168
Joined: October 22nd, 2015, 12:02 pm

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

Postby Apache on November 8th, 2015, 12:30 pm

My own image as an occult personality


:lol: Jack Parsons was an "occult personality", along with Ron L Hubbard, long before Aquino was. "image" is the right word.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons_%28rocket_engineer%29
Apache
Member
 
Posts: 168
Joined: October 22nd, 2015, 12:02 pm

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

Postby burningame on November 10th, 2015, 2:21 pm

As if to answer his own thread, it seems Mathis has left off "banging on about the intelligence agencies as the only power group in town, as if we were all born yesterday". This from one of his latest essays "Who Stole Feminism":

To see what I mean, I take you back to my late analysis of Chomsky. It took me over two decades to see that his book Manufacturing Consent utterly fails to tell who is manufacturing this consent. In fact, he consistently misdirects us into thinking the one doing the manufacturing is the media. And while it is true the media is manufacturing, Chomsky never asks the question begged: who is controlling the media, and thereby ordering the manufacturing of consent? In fact, Chomsky takes great pains to lead you away from the obvious answer. Since the media is just tool, someone must using that tool. We know the CIA is using the tool, since they have admitted it in Congressional testimony and declassified documents. But even that doesn't take us to the source, since the CIA is also a tool. In cases like this, the CIA is a tool of the Plutocracy that runs this country. It is a tool of the trillionaire families controlling public policy.


http://mileswmathis.com/boys.pdf

OK, now he's outing the culprits, "the trillionaire families controlling public policy" (TFCPP, anyone?)—but the big question is if he's still one step away in identification. That is, going further to actually say that the trillionaire families, the "Plutocracy", seem to be Jewish/Zionist in nature. Take out the Jewish element of the Holoverse we live in, and would this intricate and relentless web of fakery we all experience still exist with only your average Power Maniacs in control? I sincerely doubt it.
burningame
Member
 
Posts: 109
Joined: December 9th, 2010, 2:21 pm

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

Postby jumpy64 on November 10th, 2015, 3:13 pm

burningame wrote:As if to answer his own thread, it seems Mathis has left off "banging on about the intelligence agencies as the only power group in town, as if we were all born yesterday". [...]

OK, now he's outing the culprits, "the trillionaire families controlling public policy" (TFCPP, anyone?)—but the big question is if he's still one step away in identification. That is, going further to actually say that the trillionaire families, the "Plutocracy", seem to be Jewish/Zionist in nature. Take out the Jewish element of the Holoverse we live in, and would this intricate and relentless web of fakery we all experience still exist with only your average Power Maniacs in control? I sincerely doubt it.


Excellent point, burningame. I doubt it too.

As for the possibility of Mathis reading this thread and taking hints from it, did you miss my exchange of posts with "Wes" on page 4 and 5 of this topic? I invite you to read it again, just in case.
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

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

Postby Wes on November 10th, 2015, 4:29 pm

jumpy64 wrote:As for the possibility of Mathis reading this thread and taking hints from it, did you miss my exchange of posts with "Wes" on page 4 and 5 of this topic? I invite you to read it again, just in case.


I don't doubt that he has read this thread, but my name is Wes (without the quotations). While I can't say for certain who Miles Mathis really is, I can say with certainty that he is not me.
Wes
Member
 
Posts: 15
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 6:25 pm

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

Postby jumpy64 on November 10th, 2015, 4:34 pm

Wes wrote:
jumpy64 wrote:As for the possibility of Mathis reading this thread and taking hints from it, did you miss my exchange of posts with "Wes" on page 4 and 5 of this topic? I invite you to read it again, just in case.


I don't doubt that he has read this thread, but my name is Wes (without the quotations). While I can't say for certain who Miles Mathis really is, I can say with certainty that he is not me.


That's good to know, Wes. And thank you for stating it clearly, at last. I found your previous post kind of ambiguous, but if I was wrong, I apologize.

I look forward to reading your future posts.
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

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

Postby Wes on November 10th, 2015, 5:23 pm

burningame wrote:Take out the Jewish element of the Holoverse we live in, and would this intricate and relentless web of fakery we all experience still exist with only your average Power Maniacs in control? I sincerely doubt it.


I must first ask, how can we possibly "Take out the Jewish element"?

Secondly, if Mathis' intuitions are correct, that all of this fakery has to do with promoting trade, I don't believe that getting rid of the Jewish element would have a profound effect. Bear with me and I'll explain why.

It seems that the goal and purpose of all of the governments of the world has become to maintain an ever-growing economy. According to my reading of Mathis' research, the intelligence-agencies of the world must hold that as a prime mission statement; to maintain an ever-growing economy, by whatever means necessary.

Your average citizen has been successfully brainwashed into thinking that maintaining an ever-growing economy is a worthwhile pursuit, without ever questioning why. The intelligence agencies are made up of these brainwashed, "patriotic" citizens. If this is true, then the machine that the trillionaires have built to achieve their goal has become self-sustaining. Even if we neutralize the driver, the machine will continue on its programmed course.

So the question then becomes, how do we disable the machine? If we throw a wrench into the gears of the machine, does not the driver become stranded and powerless?
Wes
Member
 
Posts: 15
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 6:25 pm

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

Postby Wes on November 10th, 2015, 5:25 pm

jumpy64 wrote:That's good to know, Wes. And thank you for stating it clearly, at last. I found your previous post kind of ambiguous, but if I was wrong, I apologize.


Had you asked directly I would have answered. I was only matching your ambiguity. No hard feelings.
Wes
Member
 
Posts: 15
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 6:25 pm

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

Postby Flabbergasted on November 10th, 2015, 6:29 pm

Wes wrote:
burningame wrote:Take out the Jewish element of the Holoverse we live in, and would this intricate and relentless web of fakery we all experience still exist with only your average Power Maniacs in control? I sincerely doubt it.


I must first ask, how can we possibly "Take out the Jewish element"?

I think burningame meant it as a thought experiment. But it is an interesting question in the literal sense as well.

Wes wrote:It seems that the goal and purpose of all of the governments of the world has become to maintain an ever-growing economy.

I don´t think perpetual economic growth is the ultimate end, but it seems to be the unavoidable corollary of fractional reserve banking. If the economy stopped expanding, not enough new money would be created with which to pay interest and the international banking system would eventually collapse.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 722
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

PreviousNext

Return to The Question of Fakery

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests