Discussing Miles W. Mathis

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

Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Unread postby jumpy64 on Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:02 pm

Seneca wrote:
jumpy64 wrote:Apparently it's something that other people on the web have noticed too (someone even calls his writings a "Jewish damage control" operation or something like that, and after all Mathis himself admits to being "half-Jewish"), but I preferred to write to him directly before making assumptions elsewhere, behind his back, so to speak.

Hi jumpy64

Where did you read that Mathis admits to being "half-Jewish"? Since Jewish is not a race I don't think it is possible and he obviously knows that. I have been looking in his texts but these are the only references that I found:

"I have some Jewish blood, and am proud of it" from http://www.mileswmathis.com/currin3.html
"I don't mean to be anti-Jewish here, I am just trying to make sense of a lot of covert information. I am part Jewish: my great grandfather was named Moses Mordecai." from http://mileswmathis.com/obey.pdf


Hi Seneca, I see that you and Apache have already solved the question. He doesn't say "half-Jewish" but "part-Jewish". So sorry, my mistake.

I'll come back to Miles' "Jewishness" soon, though. And no, I don't mean his physical traits or facial features ;)
jumpy64
Banned
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:44 pm

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

Unread postby fbenario on Wed Oct 28, 2015 1:25 am

Apache wrote:In his essay on the Patty Hearst fakery he says the following:

I see a Jewish nose there, not an African nose of any kind. I should know, because not only am I a top portrait painter, but I have Jewish blood in the family. I have dated several Jewish girls. So I have nothing against Jews in general. I am not too happy with this obvious Jewish involvement in faked events—as you might imagine—but since the Gentiles are also involved, I could hardly be accused of anti-Semitism. I am not outing Jews in these papers, as my readers know, I am outing liars and spooks. Many of these liars and spooks are Gentiles, as far as I can tell, so there is enough blame to cover everyone. But I do see a Jewish nose here, so you will have to deal with that. That actor may not be Israeli or even Jewish, but he looks to me to have blood from that part of the world. He has Semitic features. And given that we are dealing with actors in California, the odds are good that if we see a person with features like this, we are seeing a man with Jewish heritage. Just stating the obvious, as usual.


Just be aware that many prominent Jews have hidden their true heritage, for any number of reasons. That fact isn't even contested. My own family has tried to hide its Jewish members, for reasons still not clear to me; so again, I know what I am talking about firsthand.


I have read everything Miles Mathis has written (even his physics stuff) and I think he's very good at outing spooks, but what the hell does he mean by "Jewish blood", "Semitic features" and "a Jewish nose"?


This is gibberish. Mathis' writings are usually much clearer.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2224
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

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

Unread postby jumpy64 on Sat Oct 31, 2015 2:00 pm

fbenario wrote:
Apache wrote:I have read everything Miles Mathis has written (even his physics stuff) and I think he's very good at outing spooks, but what the hell does he mean by "Jewish blood", "Semitic features" and "a Jewish nose"?


This is gibberish. Mathis' writings are usually much clearer.


I really don't understand what all the fuss is about here. I guess that, if Mathis had said "a Greek nose", "Latin features" or "German blood", nobody would have had anything to object.

What's wrong with having "Jewish blood", "Semitic features" or "a Jewish nose"? And even "beady eyes" for that matter? ;)

Somebody even tried to explain this to me, but evidently it doesn't get through my thick, Italian skull. Why on earth can't there be a Jewish race? I don't care if it's transmitted through mothers, fathers or uncles. It's stlll a race. And people of that race are the first to say so. They even consider themselves a special, unique race. That is not true, of course, but can't we at least show them a little respect and recognize their right to have a race? After all, they've been segregating themselves for thousand of years to preserve it, and now we want to nullify their efforts by negating it? Come on! This is cruel! I hope we're not being racist here...

Look at this guy, for example:

Image

What can his ethnicity be? Scandinavian? African? Chinese? Aboriginal?

His name was Bernhard Weiss (1880-1951). He was the Deputy Police Chief of Berlin in the years before the National Socialists came to power, 1927-32. Goebbels mockingly dubbed him "Isidor," a nickname meant to underscore his Jewish ancestry and appearance.

In this article author David Irving writes:

Weiss looked so much like a Jewish caricature that his photographs didn't need to be re-touched by the Nazis. He was stereotypically Semitic in feature: short, with rounded ears and hook nose, and wearing spectacles. In London I located Weiss' daughter, Hilda Baban-Weiss, and I pleaded with her for a more attractive photograph of her father, pointing out that the ones I have are not very flattering. I got total silence from the daughter, so I abandoned my quest.


Irving says Weiss was a great man, Joseph Goebbels' most formidable opponent, so in the end his appearance didn't really matter. He did look like a stereotypical Jewish, but that didn't say anything about his human character.

So here's my point: anyone's ethnical appearance isn't really important, but why can't it be stated matter-of-factly, when it happens to be evident (which is not always the case, by the way)?

So why should we attack good ol' Miles when he talks about Jewish features? He's also a painter, so he probably knows more about different ethnic features than most people. Can't we respect that?

Gibberish, no less... :rolleyes:
jumpy64
Banned
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:44 pm

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

Unread postby Apache on Sun Nov 01, 2015 7:39 pm

jumpy64 wrote:So here's my point: anyone's ethnical appearance isn't really important, but why can't it be stated matter-of-factly, when it happens to be evident (which is not always the case, by the way)? So why should we attack good ol' Miles when he talks about Jewish features? He's also a painter, so he probably knows more about different ethnic features than most people. Can't we respect that?


Mathis didn't simply say "a Jewish nose" in his Patty Hearst essay, he ranted on about "Jewish blood" and "Jewish ancestry". What is "Jewish blood" anyway? Is that available at the local blood bank? Of course not, because there's no such thing as "Jewish blood". Even if Mathis isn't Jewish he's certainly a Philosemite in many ways, otherwise he wouldn't mention things like ancestry and blood. That is why I posted what I did. To show you his words. You were the one who questioned whether he was "Jewish damage control" or not. I simply questioned his language. :D
Apache
Member
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:02 am

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

Unread postby jumpy64 on Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:51 pm

Apache wrote:Mathis didn't simply say "a Jewish nose" in his Patty Hearst essay, he ranted on about "Jewish blood" and "Jewish ancestry". What is "Jewish blood" anyway? Is that available at the local blood bank? Of course not, because there's no such thing as "Jewish blood". Even if Mathis isn't Jewish he's certainly a Philosemite in many ways, otherwise he wouldn't mention things like ancestry and blood. That is why I posted what I did. To show you his words. You were the one who questioned whether he was "Jewish damage control" or not. I simply questioned his language. :D


Point taken, Apache. It's nothing personal, of course. I just want to understand clearly what you mean when you say that "there's no such thing as Jewish blood". Are you denying the reality of any kind of national or ethnic blood (Italian blood, American blood, African blood, etc.) or just the Jewish one? Because I don't know about the blood bank, but I do know about genetic testing being required by the state of Israel at least for Russian immigrants (http://newobserveronline.com/israel-sta ... mmigrants/) and about the discovery of "Jewish genes" by Harry Ostrer, Jewish Professor of Genetics at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine located in the Bronx, New York (http://newobserveronline.com/race-or-re ... dentified/). So, what are we talking about?

Back on topic, as for Mathis being a Philosemite or "Jewish damage control", this fact is pretty evident to me by now. He's a brilliant investigator and a compelling writer, but I find it pretty risible when he ascribes the imperfections of contemporary psyops to the presence of at least two opposing factions inside the American secret services that, according to him, control the world.

Here's what he writes about this in his essay about "The Charleston and Roanoke Hoaxes":

We have evidence of two competing teams here, I think. As I have said regarding previous fake events, we appear to have
one team honestly trying to fake the event, and another embedded team foiling them at every turn. I would say DHS is planning and running these events, honestly trying to fool you and Congress into doing their bidding. But CIA is infiltrating DHS and inserting these spoilers after the fact. That is the only way I can make sense of these ludicrous stories.

So we have two layers of story. We have the primary layer created by DHS, which is poorly constructed but which might still hold water as long as it is edited and sold in the right way. But then we have a secondary layer added at the last minute by the CIA (or whatever agency), created expressly to deflate the first layer. [...]

CIA wants this DHS event to self-destruct, because CIA wants to totally blow the cover of DHS. If DHS eventually fails in toto and is defunded, more money will be available for the older Intelligence agencies.


Even if what Mathis writes wasn't the kind of misdirection that it really is, the question would remain: who controls the CIA and the DHS? They're just tools, they need to be used by someone.
To me it's like saying that a speeding BMW killed a pedestrian. OK, but who was driving it?

Mathis never says who controls the secret services, as if they were independent and by now uncontrollable entities misteriously invested, by themselves I guess, with all the power in the world. Oh, and they're practically only the American secret services, because, as I made him notice, he never mentioned the Mossad. And in fact, he mentions it once for the first time in the aforesaid essay, the first one written after my email to him. A clear sign of good faith, isn't it? ;)

Seriously, I think I have a better explanation for the psyops' imperfections, and I've given it in a post on page 16 of the thread about a Jewish conspiracy "Hiding in Plain Sight".

Jewish (or better Jewish Power Maniacs' or JPMs') control over the media and politics is so total, and even protected by absurd laws in many countries, that they can afford to be sloppy in their psyops (and Simon even added wittily that they might also want to save a few bucks by hiring cheap B-movie directors :D ). Because even if somebody unveils media fakery, as we do here, they’re still home free until nobody dares to point the finger directly at them, or whoever does is ridiculed or silenced.

And I honestly can't believe that a contemporary American version of Sherlock Holmes like Mr. Mathis doesn't even have an inkling of all this.
jumpy64
Banned
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:44 pm

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

Unread postby Apache on Tue Nov 03, 2015 4:43 pm

jumpy64 wrote:I just want to understand clearly what you mean when you say that "there's no such thing as Jewish blood". Are you denying the reality of any kind of national or ethnic blood (Italian blood, American blood, African blood, etc.) or just the Jewish one? Because I don't know about the blood bank, but I do know about genetic testing being required by the state of Israel at least for Russian immigrants (http://newobserveronline.com/israel-sta ... mmigrants/) and about the discovery of "Jewish genes" by Harry Ostrer, Jewish Professor of Genetics at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine located in the Bronx, New York (http://newobserveronline.com/race-or-re ... dentified/). So, what are we talking about?


Hi. No, I'm not taking it personally, we're just talking right? It's a board to discuss things and we are discussing things.

I'll try to answer your question. Yes I am "denying the reality of any kind of national or ethnic blood". There are 3 definitions of blood in the dictionary: 1. the red liquid that flows inside your body. 2. the family, nation, or group that you belong to through your parents and grandparents, and 3. used as a way of referring to violence and death.

Most people are referring to definition 2 when they say "Jewish blood", where blood is conflated with genes and that conflation is still in the dictionary despite now having a proper category all of its own under Genetics. I don't know, blame the Oxford Dictionary. There is a difference between blood and genetics. Actual blood carries oxygen around the body and genetics determines a person's overall material body etc. There is nothing particularly Jewish or African or American about oxygen being carried around the body and therefore there is no such thing as "Jewish blood". I'm being pedantic, I know, but I hate labels like "Jewish blood" when the correct term ought to be "genetically Jewish" versus "spiritually Jewish" as not all Jewish people are actually genetically Jewish. I also think genetics is a load of bollocks as well, but there you go.

Yes, I am aware that there are genetic conditions that are stated to only be carried by Jewish people. If they want to label their diseases as uniquely Jewish, that's their problem. I can't help it if people are delusional.

Regarding Mathis:
And I honestly can't believe that a contemporary American version of Sherlock Holmes like Mr. Mathis doesn't even have an inkling of all this.


No, it's not credible and I totally agree with you about Mathis avoiding the obvious - who pays the CIA he so happily blames everything on? Personally I know all about money being created out of nothing by psychopaths that call themselves "Jews" and I haven't got time to go into that control on the "Hiding in Plain Sight" thread as I've been a bit busy writing up evidence from the 9/11 Task Force Interviews that supports this site's main research, but I'll get to it when I can. :)
Apache
Member
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:02 am

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

Unread postby jumpy64 on Tue Nov 03, 2015 5:21 pm

Apache wrote:Yes I am "denying the reality of any kind of national or ethnic blood". There are 3 definitions of blood in the dictionary: 1. the red liquid that flows inside your body. 2. the family, nation, or group that you belong to through your parents and grandparents, and 3. used as a way of referring to violence and death.

Most people are referring to definition 2 when they say "Jewish blood", where blood is conflated with genes and that conflation is still in the dictionary despite now having a proper category all of its own under Genetics. I don't know, blame the Oxford Dictionary. There is a difference between blood and genetics. Actual blood carries oxygen around the body and genetics determines a person's overall material body etc. There is nothing particularly Jewish or African or American about oxygen being carried around the body and therefore there is no such thing as "Jewish blood". I'm being pedantic, I know, but I hate labels like "Jewish blood" when the correct term ought to be "genetically Jewish" versus "spiritually Jewish" as not all Jewish people are actually genetically Jewish. I also think genetics is a load of bollocks as well, but there you go.

Yes, I am aware that there are genetic conditions that are stated to only be carried by Jewish people. If they want to label their diseases as uniquely Jewish, that's their problem. I can't help it if people are delusional.


Thank you, Apache. Actually, I tend to agree with you. I believe the influence of a "race" or culture works more through the mental/emotional/spiritual conditioning each of its members receives, which I'm not sure is something "scientifically" quantifiable. Part of the conditioning we Westerners have received in the last fifty or sixty years, though, makes us deny the importance of differente races, ethnicities or cultures, to the advantage of the only race/ethnicity/culture that's still allowed to reinforce its identity and pursue its interests in the West. That's why now I look more suspiciously at such a way of thinking, even when it happens in myself.

Regarding Mathis:

And I honestly can't believe that a contemporary American version of Sherlock Holmes like Mr. Mathis doesn't even have an inkling of all this.


No, it's not credible and I totally agree with you about Mathis avoiding the obvious - who pays the CIA he so happily blames everything on?


I'm glad you find it pretty obvious too.

Personally I know all about money being created out of nothing by psychopaths that call themselves "Jews" and I haven't got time to go into that control on the "Hiding in Plain Sight" thread as I've been a bit busy writing up evidence from the 9/11 Task Force Interviews that supports this site's main research, but I'll get to it when I can. :)


I absolutely look forward to reading about this, Apache! I consider it a promise on your part. To the point that I'd like to take this last quote of yours to the "Hiding in Plain Sight" thread, including the bit about the 9/11 research, also because I'd like to ask you and other experienced researchers something there. But only if you give me permission to do so. Otherwise, I'll just wait (im)patiently for your upcoming post on the announced subject.
jumpy64
Banned
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:44 pm

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

Unread postby Apache on Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:32 am

jumpy64 wrote:I believe the influence of a "race" or culture works more through the mental/emotional/spiritual conditioning each of its members receives, which I'm not sure is something "scientifically" quantifiable. Part of the conditioning we Westerners have received in the last fifty or sixty years, though, makes us deny the importance of differente races, ethnicities or cultures, to the advantage of the only race/ethnicity/culture that's still allowed to reinforce its identity and pursue its interests in the West. That's why now I look more suspiciously at such a way of thinking, even when it happens in myself.


I agree, I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

jumpy64 wrote:I consider it a promise on your part [because] I'd like to ask you and other experienced researchers something there. But only if you give me permission to do so.


lol you don't need to ask me permission, but I do thank you for your politeness. Ask away.
Apache
Member
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:02 am

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

Unread postby Wes on Thu Nov 05, 2015 8:24 pm

jumpy64 wrote:Even if what Mathis writes wasn't the kind of misdirection that it really is, the question would remain: who controls the CIA and the DHS? They're just tools, they need to be used by someone.
To me it's like saying that a speeding BMW killed a pedestrian. OK, but who was driving it?

Mathis never says who controls the secret services, as if they were independent and by now uncontrollable entities misteriously invested, by themselves I guess, with all the power in the world.

And I honestly can't believe that a contemporary American version of Sherlock Holmes like Mr. Mathis doesn't even have an inkling of all this.


It seems that you are under the assumption that he has this information and chooses not to share it. Is it possible that he does not know who is using these agencies, but only that they are being used?

To me it looks like he is uncovering the agencies as being tools, but he doesn't know who is doing the tooling. Even if he had an inkling, would it make sense to spew conjecture and risk leading his readers down a dead-end path? Regardless of who is in control, if he has compiled evidence that these agencies are being used against us, should he hold all of that evidence until he has names and photos of those in control?

Should the release of September Clues have been held off until we had a watertight case against a solid list of the individuals that orchestrated it? Or was it enough to expose the event as being faked so that other investigators can continue down the path toward the perpetrators themselves?

To use your BMW analogy, if the public were led to believe that a speeding BMW did not kill a pedestrian, then would it make sense to expose the fact that a speeding BMW did in fact kill a pedestrian, even if the driver could not yet be identified?
Wes
Member
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 5:25 pm

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

Unread postby jumpy64 on Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:40 pm

Wes wrote:
jumpy64 wrote:Even if what Mathis writes wasn't the kind of misdirection that it really is, the question would remain: who controls the CIA and the DHS? They're just tools, they need to be used by someone.
To me it's like saying that a speeding BMW killed a pedestrian. OK, but who was driving it?

Mathis never says who controls the secret services, as if they were independent and by now uncontrollable entities misteriously invested, by themselves I guess, with all the power in the world.

And I honestly can't believe that a contemporary American version of Sherlock Holmes like Mr. Mathis doesn't even have an inkling of all this.


It seems that you are under the assumption that he has this information and chooses not to share it. Is it possible that he does not know who is using these agencies, but only that they are being used?

To me it looks like he is uncovering the agencies as being tools, but he doesn't know who is doing the tooling. Even if he had an inkling, would it make sense to spew conjecture and risk leading his readers down a dead-end path? Regardless of who is in control, if he has compiled evidence that these agencies are being used against us, should he hold all of that evidence until he has names and photos of those in control?

Should the release of September Clues have been held off until we had a watertight case against a solid list of the individuals that orchestrated it? Or was it enough to expose the event as being faked so that other investigators can continue down the path toward the perpetrators themselves?

To use your BMW analogy, if the public were led to believe that a speeding BMW did not kill a pedestrian then it would make sense to expose the fact that a speeding BMW did in fact kill a pedestrian, even if the driver could not yet be identified.


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.
jumpy64
Banned
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:44 pm

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

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:19 am

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
Administrator
 
Posts: 5058
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

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

Unread postby Wes on Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:45 am

jumpy64 wrote: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).

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.


You could be right, but I remain unconvinced. I am of a similar opinion to him in regards to Jews.

http://mileswmathis.com/occult.pdf wrote:This doesn't mean I am on their side. In fact, I am not. I am not on anyone's side, especially a group
that has relied so heavily on lies and deception. But the Jews have no monopoly on lying or deception.
Wes
Member
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 5:25 pm

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

Unread postby simonshack on Fri Nov 06, 2015 10:33 am

Wes wrote:You could be right, but I remain unconvinced. I am of a similar opinion to him in regards to Jews.

http://mileswmathis.com/occult.pdf wrote:This doesn't mean I am on their side. In fact, I am not. I am not on anyone's side, especially a group
that has relied so heavily on lies and deception. But the Jews have no monopoly on lying or deception.


I agree in principle, Wes - as it is always wrong to generalize (for reason justly counsels reasonable people not to generalize).
On the other hand, one could also say that Mc Donald's has no monopoly on hamburgers - yet they certainly would appear to be working hard - all around the world - towards that end...
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6713
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

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

Unread postby Wes on Fri Nov 06, 2015 3:52 pm

simonshack wrote:I agree in principle, Wes - as it is always wrong to generalize (for reason justly counsels reasonable people not to generalize).
On the other hand, one could also say that Mc Donald's has no monopoly on hamburgers - yet they certainly would appear to be working hard - all around the world - towards that end...


I understand what you mean. And I suppose that one could take it upon himself to prove that. But the problem isn't McDonald's per se, it is the owners of McDonald's and the hamburgers that they sell(in this strange analogy). So if one decided to expose the burgers, and in the process found out that Burger King makes similar burgers, laying the blame squarely on McDonald's would seem counter productive. I'll add that I've not yet seen him deflecting attention away from McDonald's. He leaves the question open while answering other important questions.

I don't remember which paper it was in, but I recall Mathis saying something to the effect of, "If I don't have any new research to add, then I don't write a paper." Blaming "The Jews" is not new, and that may be because it is the correct assumption. But their Jewishness is not the problem, their power and their agenda is the problem. So his research, to me, does not look like misdirection. It looks like a great body of research that can be used alongside other research to find out who is behind it all. Mr. Mathis no doubt has his share of bias, as we all do, but I still think he is on our team.

For what it's worth, I would not be on the trail of truth if not for his work. I first came across this paper while researching Nikola Tesla. I found it compelling and began to read the rest of his papers. When I found his cache of papers relating to conspiracies and hoaxes, my jaw dropped. In reading nearly all of his papers, I was able to understand his research method. This tool is what gave me the confidence to go out and look for clues myself, using all that I had learned from him on spotting red flags.

Without exposure to his research I would still be a passive reader, rather than a resolute researcher. So maybe my biases are showing.
Wes
Member
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 5:25 pm

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

Unread postby jumpy64 on Fri Nov 06, 2015 4:05 pm

Wes wrote:
simonshack wrote:I agree in principle, Wes - as it is always wrong to generalize (for reason justly counsels reasonable people not to generalize).
On the other hand, one could also say that Mc Donald's has no monopoly on hamburgers - yet they certainly would appear to be working hard - all around the world - towards that end...


I understand what you mean. And I suppose that one could take it upon himself to prove that. But the problem isn't McDonald's per se, it is the owners of McDonald's and the hamburgers that they sell(in this strange analogy). So if one decided to expose the burgers, and in the process found out that Burger King makes similar burgers, laying the blame squarely on McDonald's would seem counter productive. I'll add that I've not yet seen him deflecting attention away from McDonald's. He leaves the question open while answering other important questions.

I don't remember which paper it was in, but I recall Mathis saying something to the effect of, "If I don't have any new research to add, then I don't write a paper." Blaming "The Jews" is not new, and that may be because it is the correct assumption. But their Jewishness is not the problem, their power and their agenda is the problem. So his research, to me, does not look like misdirection. It looks like a great body of research that can be used alongside other research to find out who is behind it all. Mr. Mathis no doubt has his share of bias, as we all do, but I still think he is on our team.

For what it's worth, I would not be on the trail of truth if not for his work. I first came across this paper while researching Nikola Tesla. I found it compelling and began to read the rest of his papers. When I found his cache of papers relating to conspiracies and hoaxes, my jaw dropped. In reading nearly all of his papers, I was able to understand his research method. This tool is what gave me the confidence to go out and look for clues myself, using all that I had learned from him on spotting red flags.

Without exposure to his research I would still be a passive reader, rather than a resolute researcher. So maybe my biases are showing.


I agree with some of your observations, Wes. Mathis has taught many things to me too, so I still have a certain respect for him. I just think I've discovered his main bias, which now I consider an important and very limiting one, unfortunately.

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.
jumpy64
Banned
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Question of Fakery

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron