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.
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/2 ... es-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?