[quote"allancw"] I don't believe you mean that evidence is unimportant...[/quote]
What like magic bullets and flying passports and the like?
Discussing Miles W. Mathis
Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis
I said what I meant allan.
[quote"allancw"] I don't believe you mean that evidence is unimportant...[/quote]
What like magic bullets and flying passports and the like?
[quote"allancw"] I don't believe you mean that evidence is unimportant...[/quote]
What like magic bullets and flying passports and the like?
Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis
Allan,
If I may respond, with respect...
Connally is an important part of the story, as you said he's used partially to distract and misdirect but also used as a first hand witness to tell the story, straight from his hospital bed with bandages on his fake wounds to make the entire thing seem more real to the average viewer, the fakery aspects of which were never to be discussed until very recently, 50 years later. So the idea that "any of which could go wrong" just isn't reality, they have full control over the entire narrative, nobody's going to question good ole' Governor Connally, the poor chap got shot!
Now, don't get me wrong, I think it's appropriate that you would ask yourself this important question that you've raised above - "why such an otherwise brilliant plan would be complicated by an unnecessarily messy detail, which would result in more people knowing of nature of the op."
I asked myself this question MANY MANY times when I first began researching the material on this forum. Eventually it just became more and more clear that these little tidbits which on the surface seem like unnecessarily messy details are indeed part of the entire operation and are necessary to keep it confusing.
9/11 has dozens (hundreds?) of these silly little extra tidbits of someone, somewhere with some story to tell, and here we are 15 years later and still, none of it proves to be really messy for them or questioned by anyone outside of a small percentage of good folks (mostly on this forum). The most famous of these being the "nose out" clip which on its face seems like a "mess up", designed to lead us to believe that it was LIVE VIDEO? In the early years of this research it was very difficult for me to understand - "why would they leave that in there?" Over time, it makes sense, they have to have a lot of these in there to keep the entire thing as confusing as possible, especially for the more discerned viewers.
Choose whichever fake terrorist event you like and you'll find many of these stories which cause no problems whatsoever for the narrative and in fact help to solidify the event as "real" in the eyes of the public. In fact, I would venture to say that the more real witnesses, wounds, stories, etc, the better for them. So, Governor Connally is indeed a key piece of the story, in that he was there in that limo, has a story to tell and wounds he can show you, thus making the entire thing more believable. It's safe and effective and it's not going to get messy.
Cheers!
If I may respond, with respect...
I respectfully disagree. All of these psyops are full of "unnecessarily messy details", are they not? Why do you believe these details would result in more people knowing the nature of the operation when in fact it's been well hidden for over 50 years? The nature of Connally's wounds are 100% part of the narrative and fully controlled by the media outlets of the time. Using the same logic, why bother with a story about a second gunman on the grassy knoll, or the man with the umbrella, or James Files or any of these other "messy details" ...allancw wrote:For example, re Connally's possibly faked wounds (which I clearly mention, anonjedi2), I'd ask myself why such an otherwise brilliant plan would be complicated by an unnecessarily messy detail, which would result in more people knowing of nature of the op. Connally's 'wounds' in fact raised all sorts of red flags that called attention to the faults in the 'story,' with no up side. You might reply that this would be one of those 'false leads' that distract, get folks arguing about it, misdirecting them and so forth, but at a certain point the sheer weight of the number of 'apparent fuck ups' (false leads for conspiracy theorists) -- any of which could 'go wrong' -- would have ol' Occam shaking his head in doubt, if not disgust.
Connally is an important part of the story, as you said he's used partially to distract and misdirect but also used as a first hand witness to tell the story, straight from his hospital bed with bandages on his fake wounds to make the entire thing seem more real to the average viewer, the fakery aspects of which were never to be discussed until very recently, 50 years later. So the idea that "any of which could go wrong" just isn't reality, they have full control over the entire narrative, nobody's going to question good ole' Governor Connally, the poor chap got shot!
Now, don't get me wrong, I think it's appropriate that you would ask yourself this important question that you've raised above - "why such an otherwise brilliant plan would be complicated by an unnecessarily messy detail, which would result in more people knowing of nature of the op."
I asked myself this question MANY MANY times when I first began researching the material on this forum. Eventually it just became more and more clear that these little tidbits which on the surface seem like unnecessarily messy details are indeed part of the entire operation and are necessary to keep it confusing.
9/11 has dozens (hundreds?) of these silly little extra tidbits of someone, somewhere with some story to tell, and here we are 15 years later and still, none of it proves to be really messy for them or questioned by anyone outside of a small percentage of good folks (mostly on this forum). The most famous of these being the "nose out" clip which on its face seems like a "mess up", designed to lead us to believe that it was LIVE VIDEO? In the early years of this research it was very difficult for me to understand - "why would they leave that in there?" Over time, it makes sense, they have to have a lot of these in there to keep the entire thing as confusing as possible, especially for the more discerned viewers.
Choose whichever fake terrorist event you like and you'll find many of these stories which cause no problems whatsoever for the narrative and in fact help to solidify the event as "real" in the eyes of the public. In fact, I would venture to say that the more real witnesses, wounds, stories, etc, the better for them. So, Governor Connally is indeed a key piece of the story, in that he was there in that limo, has a story to tell and wounds he can show you, thus making the entire thing more believable. It's safe and effective and it's not going to get messy.
Nothing sloppy about it, imo. There are 4.5 million people living in New Zealand. You wouldn't need that much land for 10, 20, 50 million people and I doubt it's that high. Even a swath of land the size of Texas (or smaller) would do just fine with more than enough room for everyone to live comfortable, lavish lifestyles. There could very well be some land out there that's not on any map that any of us have seen and they're all living quite beautiful lives there. That is of course just a theory and mere speculation on my part, but the idea isn't that far-fetched. Perhaps they're also given the option to relocate to another country, get some plastic surgery or even just grow a beard and long hair and nobody would ever see them again. Where do you think Michael Jackson is, for example? I hope you don't actually believe he's in a coffin somewhere. So, he has to be somewhere else, no?Miles in general seems to figure that many if not most suspicious 'world event' deaths are really relocations, even of lesser players. In the case of the JFK 'op', presumably whatever 'paradise' they all get sent to would get pretty crowded -- the number of JFK-related deaths is up there in the hundreds by most estimates. Talk about sloppy!
And what exactly do we know about them, other than what we think we know based on what's been fed to us about their personalities? Also, do these people really and actually have this level of power that we assume they do, or are they merely low level players (actors, agents, etc.) who don't have any real power at all? Who doesn't want to retire without a care in the world in some paradise with their loved ones, surrounded by abundance with no bills to pay, things to worry about or responsibilities whatsoever? I think you and I might have a different idea of what human nature actually dictates.A related issue is simple human nature, especially among famous and powerful people. Giving up the trappings of power -- the public flaunting of the fact that they 'are different from you and me' (Fitzgerald, was it?) -- seems completely contra to everything we know about them.
Cheers!
-
SacredCowSlayer
- Administrator
- Posts: 789
- Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm
Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis
Anonjedi2,
That was a brilliant and concise explanation with solid and logical reasoning in every regard. Thank you for that. I truly could not have stated it better.
I would simply add that all the psy ops over the years are now much more easily understood after learning that the "media" is not an authentic entity and thus a "check on power" (was it ever?).
One of the cornerstones of our phony system is the constant drilling in of the idea (ad nauseum) that the media (or press) is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so that it can act as a check on the government and hold elected officials accountable etc. With that backdrop in mind these events are quite difficult to process.
But once their credibility is destroyed it all becomes just a bad TV show designed to indoctrinate and distract. Most people just can't allow themselves to deal with such mass deception on so many levels. For who can they turn to now?
Connolly to be sure played an important role in bolstering the reality of the event. You are absolutely correct IMO that all the side shows only serve to make the story more believable, and the big picture more confusing to anyone trying to make sense of it (chasing rabbits).
Lastly, I'd like to address the question of "why does he have to be dead?" (not posed by you of course). I'm not really sure what the point of this question is to be honest. He has to be dead because that's how they were to traumatize the society at large- by shooting their beloved president in the head (on TV). And why do we have to assume he was an authentic person who is needed by some shadow government? Or am I missing something here?
That was a brilliant and concise explanation with solid and logical reasoning in every regard. Thank you for that. I truly could not have stated it better.
I would simply add that all the psy ops over the years are now much more easily understood after learning that the "media" is not an authentic entity and thus a "check on power" (was it ever?).
One of the cornerstones of our phony system is the constant drilling in of the idea (ad nauseum) that the media (or press) is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so that it can act as a check on the government and hold elected officials accountable etc. With that backdrop in mind these events are quite difficult to process.
But once their credibility is destroyed it all becomes just a bad TV show designed to indoctrinate and distract. Most people just can't allow themselves to deal with such mass deception on so many levels. For who can they turn to now?
Connolly to be sure played an important role in bolstering the reality of the event. You are absolutely correct IMO that all the side shows only serve to make the story more believable, and the big picture more confusing to anyone trying to make sense of it (chasing rabbits).
Lastly, I'd like to address the question of "why does he have to be dead?" (not posed by you of course). I'm not really sure what the point of this question is to be honest. He has to be dead because that's how they were to traumatize the society at large- by shooting their beloved president in the head (on TV). And why do we have to assume he was an authentic person who is needed by some shadow government? Or am I missing something here?
Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis
Agreed.
Additionally, when you examine Kennedy's Hollywood connections, the idea that the shooting was a stage show or theatrical production if you will, becomes even more plausible. JFK's father was a Hollywood executive in the 1920s. JFK relied heavily on celebrity hype to create his political credibility as a presidential nominee. The appeal of JFK while he was still running for office came from "fans" first and then voters second. This emotional appeal still exists today.
Since then, there have been many other presidents who were advised or endorsed by by celebrities behind the scenes. The strategy of the JFK presidential campaign actually included the idea of creating Jack Kennedy "fans" and they used all media outlets to do this in the form of highlighting his public appearances, numerous press releases, etc. They even hired a production company to follow him around and film the rabid reactions of his fans screaming his name and asking for autographs like he was a rock star.
Indeed, Kennedy's Hollywood connections run deep and his support included many Hollywood liberals including Frank Sinatra and others. I would go as far as saying that the Hollywood publicity won him the election as he cozied up to many celebrities for endorsements.
There's a great book called Showbiz Politics for anyone who is interested, which examines the institutionalization of Hollywood in American Politics from 1928 to 1980.
RFK probably had even more Hollywood connections than his brother, the details of which you can read in the RFK Assassination thread on this forum.
It makes perfect sense that the entire Dealey Plaza ordeal was a Hollywood Production, complete with fake blood and squibs and then staged photographs of the "corpse" from the hospital later. Indeed, one only needs to examine the physical and photographic evidence (blood in the limousine and lack of blood on Jackie's dress, among other details) to realize quickly that something is just not right with the whole thing. The most logical conclusion upon such examination is that the entire thing was a hoax.
The rest of it (where did JFK go? What about Connelly's wounds?) is just conspiracy candy and are really insignificant details, as we'll likely never have solid answers to those questions, but again - that is by design to keep us wondering and guessing for decades.
Additionally, when you examine Kennedy's Hollywood connections, the idea that the shooting was a stage show or theatrical production if you will, becomes even more plausible. JFK's father was a Hollywood executive in the 1920s. JFK relied heavily on celebrity hype to create his political credibility as a presidential nominee. The appeal of JFK while he was still running for office came from "fans" first and then voters second. This emotional appeal still exists today.
Since then, there have been many other presidents who were advised or endorsed by by celebrities behind the scenes. The strategy of the JFK presidential campaign actually included the idea of creating Jack Kennedy "fans" and they used all media outlets to do this in the form of highlighting his public appearances, numerous press releases, etc. They even hired a production company to follow him around and film the rabid reactions of his fans screaming his name and asking for autographs like he was a rock star.
Indeed, Kennedy's Hollywood connections run deep and his support included many Hollywood liberals including Frank Sinatra and others. I would go as far as saying that the Hollywood publicity won him the election as he cozied up to many celebrities for endorsements.
There's a great book called Showbiz Politics for anyone who is interested, which examines the institutionalization of Hollywood in American Politics from 1928 to 1980.
RFK probably had even more Hollywood connections than his brother, the details of which you can read in the RFK Assassination thread on this forum.
It makes perfect sense that the entire Dealey Plaza ordeal was a Hollywood Production, complete with fake blood and squibs and then staged photographs of the "corpse" from the hospital later. Indeed, one only needs to examine the physical and photographic evidence (blood in the limousine and lack of blood on Jackie's dress, among other details) to realize quickly that something is just not right with the whole thing. The most logical conclusion upon such examination is that the entire thing was a hoax.
The rest of it (where did JFK go? What about Connelly's wounds?) is just conspiracy candy and are really insignificant details, as we'll likely never have solid answers to those questions, but again - that is by design to keep us wondering and guessing for decades.
-
Farcevalue
- Member
- Posts: 392
- Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:21 am
Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis
The "Too many people would have to be in on it", or "There are too many conflicting and unnecessary details woven into the story" ideas that cause incredulity in those unfamiliar with fakery rest on the assumption that there is a legitimate governing body or source of factual information distribution that could be informed of the charades and would then be compelled to act on that knowledge.
The definition of legitimate is circular to begin with; in reality there is no rationale for expecting the state, regardless of how compartmentalized and perhaps "rogue" certain actors may be, to prosecute itself. The whole ball of wax is a fiction to begin with; the reason there is such a thing as a "government" at all is because those who call themselves such wrote (and continue to expand upon) a story featuring themselves as authorities in the institution of their own creation.
As far as the news media goes, although many make the assumption that the "news" is involved in the exercise of distributing factual information, there is no reason to accept this as a given (as the members of this forum are well aware).
This being the case, the idea of exposing factual elements of a psyop that contradict the official narrative to agents of government or media would be akin to "exposing" inaccurate elements of a fictional Hollywood movie to its producer or director (or better yet, gaffers and craft services crew) and expecting a revised release that would set the fictional record straight.
The definition of legitimate is circular to begin with; in reality there is no rationale for expecting the state, regardless of how compartmentalized and perhaps "rogue" certain actors may be, to prosecute itself. The whole ball of wax is a fiction to begin with; the reason there is such a thing as a "government" at all is because those who call themselves such wrote (and continue to expand upon) a story featuring themselves as authorities in the institution of their own creation.
As far as the news media goes, although many make the assumption that the "news" is involved in the exercise of distributing factual information, there is no reason to accept this as a given (as the members of this forum are well aware).
This being the case, the idea of exposing factual elements of a psyop that contradict the official narrative to agents of government or media would be akin to "exposing" inaccurate elements of a fictional Hollywood movie to its producer or director (or better yet, gaffers and craft services crew) and expecting a revised release that would set the fictional record straight.
Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis
Exactly. What's one to do when one discovers fakery?
E-mail the White House?
Go to the Police Station?
Call Anderson Cooper?
E-mail the White House?
Go to the Police Station?
Call Anderson Cooper?
Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis
Brilliant. That so called critical thinkers the likes of Stephan Molyneux & Co. can't figure this out is beyond me! Tsk tsk, silly me. They're paid to not figure it out!Farcevalue » August 11th, 2016, 9:46 pm wrote:The "Too many people would have to be in on it", or "There are too many conflicting and unnecessary details woven into the story" ideas that cause incredulity in those unfamiliar with fakery rest on the assumption that there is a legitimate governing body or source of factual information distribution that could be informed of the charades and would then be compelled to act on that knowledge.
The definition of legitimate is circular to begin with; in reality there is no rationale for expecting the state, regardless of how compartmentalized and perhaps "rogue" certain actors may be, to prosecute itself. The whole ball of wax is a fiction to begin with; the reason there is such a thing as a "government" at all is because those who call themselves such wrote (and continue to expand upon) a story featuring themselves as authorities in the institution of their own creation.
As far as the news media goes, although many make the assumption that the "news" is involved in the exercise of distributing factual information, there is no reason to accept this as a given (as the members of this forum are well aware).
This being the case, the idea of exposing factual elements of a psyop that contradict the official narrative to agents of government or media would be akin to "exposing" inaccurate elements of a fictional Hollywood movie to its producer or director (or better yet, gaffers and craft services crew) and expecting a revised release that would set the fictional record straight.
This has got me thinking, the fact that all "governments" are fictions means that every war ever carried out is unlawful and every "soldier" man a murderer and every victim murdered. Organisations like NATO the same applies. I wonder if fictional States and War are somehow contingent on each other.
Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis
It recently came to my attention that Anton Yelchin has joined the ’27 Club.’
I grew up on the mean streets of West San Fernando Valley and partied with some of the Taft/El Camino Real/Calabasas High School cliques in the 90’s. Among them were some of the real-life kids who were portrayed in the film Alpha Dog. I can say with absolute certainty that the person Ferocious Fernando Vargas portrayed was real/existed. I knew him & his older brother well (one of the ‘perks’ of a misspent youth)*. The last time I saw him & his older brother was in 1997-98.
I don’t know if the alleged kidnapping/murder took place. I do know that Justin Timberlake deserves an Oscar for “West Valley Wigger of the Century!”
* I should clarify that I knew his older brother well. Baby bro was too young to hang. Mostly have memories of big bro (John) kicking him (Will) out of his room, parties, etc.
If he really did die, then RIP! He was a gifted actor. If he didn’t die, then I hereby light the Math-Signal!Anton Yelchin's parents grieve, sue Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/peop ... /87960448/
I grew up on the mean streets of West San Fernando Valley and partied with some of the Taft/El Camino Real/Calabasas High School cliques in the 90’s. Among them were some of the real-life kids who were portrayed in the film Alpha Dog. I can say with absolute certainty that the person Ferocious Fernando Vargas portrayed was real/existed. I knew him & his older brother well (one of the ‘perks’ of a misspent youth)*. The last time I saw him & his older brother was in 1997-98.
I don’t know if the alleged kidnapping/murder took place. I do know that Justin Timberlake deserves an Oscar for “West Valley Wigger of the Century!”
* I should clarify that I knew his older brother well. Baby bro was too young to hang. Mostly have memories of big bro (John) kicking him (Will) out of his room, parties, etc.
Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis
Victim's Brother Tries to Make Sense of Slaying
Slaying: Benjamin Markowitz says his longtime friends retaliated when he tried to straighten out his life.
July 26, 2001|JEAN GUCCIONE and SUE FOX | TIMES STAFF WRITERS
At one point, the pair had worked out daily at a Malibu gym. But [Ben] Markowitz said he stopped selling drugs. He moved into his dad's West Hills home and was working as a machinist in the family aerospace business. His new early morning schedule did not leave much time for his longtime friends.
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jul/26/local/me-26806
I’d also like to point out that in Southern California (especially the valley) almost everyone knows (or is related to) someone who is/was a private aerospace industry contractor. This makes it all the more challenging to get through to them on NASA Hoax(es). Believe me I’ve tried & tried…
The usual response is,
“Well, I know for a fact that my uncle made parts for the Apollo missions. Are you trying to say he didn’t?”
Me: No, of course not! I’m sure your uncle did design/manufacture parts for NASA.
Them: So are you saying my uncle was in on the scam?
Me: No, of course not! I’m sure he believed NASA’s propaganda like almost everyone else!
Them: I’ll have you know my uncle graduated summa cum laude from such n’ such University... You can’t be serious IC!
Me: You’re absolutely right. All apologies. I don’t know what I was thinking. Pass the bong!
Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis
Utter silence!
Deafening silence!
Any word from the Math-Cave?
Deafening silence!
Simon,simonshack » July 10th, 2016, 12:32 pm wrote:Miles, if you read this, will you please get in touch? Thanks !
Any word from the Math-Cave?
-
simonshack
- Administrator
- Posts: 7276
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis
Not yet, IC. As far as I'm concerned, Miles will always be very welcome here to exchange thoughts and interact with the members / readership of this forum. As things stand though, let me remind you that Miles asked me (in his last mail to me of Jan1, 2016) to 'take down all the slander' of him first.
Simon,
Any word from the Math-Cave?
Here's what I wrote to him back then:
And his reply was :simonshack wrote:(Dec 30, 2015)Hey, Miles
I'd be honored if you joined our forum.
Sincerely
Simon
I'd like to reiterate once more that I have never personally slandered Miles in any way or form over the years. Nor do I think that any occasional critiques of / opinions about his work (expressed on this thread by a few Cluesforum members) would qualify as 'slander' - as far as I can tell. I therefore find it difficult to single out and arbitrarily 'take down' any writings which Miles appears to take offence at - particularly since I don't even know which posts he's referring to. To be sure and needless to say, I obviously do not - and couldn't possibly - endorse everything being posted on this forum by our international membership.MilesMathis wrote:(Jan 1, 2016)Simon, I guess you read my latest. YOu need to take down all the slander of me over there first. If you do I will happy to restore my link to you. Miles
Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?
Well, Simon, Apache’s already pointed out the difference between (BLOOD?) ‘Libel’ and ‘Slander.’
So I don’t understand why you’re on the defensive (again!). The onus is on Kilos kalculus! Anyhow, I get that you’re trying to be diplomatic (not wanting to burn any bridges). You exhibit remarkable modesty and decorum, Sir!
I, on the other hand, don’t have that ‘problem’...
‘Cause I came to shake the frame in half
With the thoughts that bomb sh!t like math
-Wu-Tang Clan – Protect Ya Neck
Apache » December 31st, 2015, 5:49 am wrote:Sorry to be picky with Miles but the correct legal term is libel, not slander.simply because I am tired of being slandered on his forum
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/libel
to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion.
So I don’t understand why you’re on the defensive (again!). The onus is on Kilos kalculus! Anyhow, I get that you’re trying to be diplomatic (not wanting to burn any bridges). You exhibit remarkable modesty and decorum, Sir!
I, on the other hand, don’t have that ‘problem’...
‘Cause I came to shake the frame in half
With the thoughts that bomb sh!t like math
-Wu-Tang Clan – Protect Ya Neck
-
hoi.polloi
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis
Same experience here. Not for want of trying, though! Maybe one day I'll find an intelligent (gracious? humane?) knucklehead brainwashed. I'd really like to. Having been one of them myself, I readily admit when I changed my beliefs, even if it cost me social points.ICfreely wrote: [...] I’m sure he believed NASA’s propaganda like almost everyone else!
Them: I’ll have you know my uncle graduated summa cum laude from such n’ such University... You can’t be serious IC!
Seems when I finally get close, they realize they have to question a social privilege granted by the belief they're espousing and then ... well ... you can imagine how that goes.
Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis
Since my last post I've been on a marathon read of Miles Mathis and have a lot to say about Miles - not even counting my correspondence with him (a bit more below) - mostly very positive (re the information and conclusions of his essays), but yesterday something occurred to me -- and I surely do apologize if someone else has mentioned this and I missed it.
See, I was reading along and suddenly realized how much I was enjoying myself. I thought, Jeez, it's going to be a bummer when I run out of Miles's essays to read!'
Then I did some counting and pretty much... this is only a slight exaggeration... came to the conclusion that Miles is writing about as fast as I can read, at least this year. I believe I counted 53 essays since the first of the year, some of which essays are actually short-book length, and keep in mind I'm NOT counting his physics stuff or his art work. And of course, we have the research inherent in the essays...
Being a writer myself (see Amazon, 'Allan Weisbecker'), my conclusion is that 'milesmathis.com', the persona thereof, has to be a group, a very well organized group with serious resources. Which means that 'Miles' has been... less than honest with us... which usually means that we are dealing with some sort of limited hangout. Or possibly, in Miles's case, some sort of Unlimited Hangout, since so much (it not all) of his observations appear to be correct.
Is it possible that 'they' have finally decided - for whatever reason -- that they want a 'real' history on the record? I mean, what harm could it do? I mean, you run around summing up Miles's essays, the likely result will be a straight jacket, no? Reminds me of the book 'The Most Dangerous Book in the World; 9/11 as Mega-Ritual', which, although written by an obvious mole, likewise spills some amazing beans (while at the same time claiming that real planes were involved, etc., etc., etc.).
One of Miles's conclusions - one I had already come to - is that there is a split in the PTB. 'Miles Mathis' might represent one faction...
I actually have a lot to say about some of the essays (I now TEND to agree with the CF concensus re the JFK fraud) but for now I'd just like to put out there the fact that 'Miles's' output is not humanly possible.
Also keep in mind that Miles asked me NOT to attend his conference, presumably based on my outing of figures like James Corbett and FBI Agent John O'Neill (I sent him links to my essays). He sacrificed $400 to avoid questions I might have, called me 'disruptive' and finally said that 'no one would want to hear' my questions. My questions in fact were going to be re space travel and NASA, two subjects he tends to avoid (or at least has not covered with alacrity)... Also keep in mind this quote from a Miles essay: 'I am not saying you should trust me. You shouldn't trust anyone, especially someone you haven't met in person.' In my case, apparently this doesn't apply. (One of you has met Miles and vouches for him. Anyone else?)
But please mainly deal with word counting, etc., and see if you believe any single human could do what Miles claims to have done, starting with this year.
See, I was reading along and suddenly realized how much I was enjoying myself. I thought, Jeez, it's going to be a bummer when I run out of Miles's essays to read!'
Then I did some counting and pretty much... this is only a slight exaggeration... came to the conclusion that Miles is writing about as fast as I can read, at least this year. I believe I counted 53 essays since the first of the year, some of which essays are actually short-book length, and keep in mind I'm NOT counting his physics stuff or his art work. And of course, we have the research inherent in the essays...
Being a writer myself (see Amazon, 'Allan Weisbecker'), my conclusion is that 'milesmathis.com', the persona thereof, has to be a group, a very well organized group with serious resources. Which means that 'Miles' has been... less than honest with us... which usually means that we are dealing with some sort of limited hangout. Or possibly, in Miles's case, some sort of Unlimited Hangout, since so much (it not all) of his observations appear to be correct.
Is it possible that 'they' have finally decided - for whatever reason -- that they want a 'real' history on the record? I mean, what harm could it do? I mean, you run around summing up Miles's essays, the likely result will be a straight jacket, no? Reminds me of the book 'The Most Dangerous Book in the World; 9/11 as Mega-Ritual', which, although written by an obvious mole, likewise spills some amazing beans (while at the same time claiming that real planes were involved, etc., etc., etc.).
One of Miles's conclusions - one I had already come to - is that there is a split in the PTB. 'Miles Mathis' might represent one faction...
I actually have a lot to say about some of the essays (I now TEND to agree with the CF concensus re the JFK fraud) but for now I'd just like to put out there the fact that 'Miles's' output is not humanly possible.
Also keep in mind that Miles asked me NOT to attend his conference, presumably based on my outing of figures like James Corbett and FBI Agent John O'Neill (I sent him links to my essays). He sacrificed $400 to avoid questions I might have, called me 'disruptive' and finally said that 'no one would want to hear' my questions. My questions in fact were going to be re space travel and NASA, two subjects he tends to avoid (or at least has not covered with alacrity)... Also keep in mind this quote from a Miles essay: 'I am not saying you should trust me. You shouldn't trust anyone, especially someone you haven't met in person.' In my case, apparently this doesn't apply. (One of you has met Miles and vouches for him. Anyone else?)
But please mainly deal with word counting, etc., and see if you believe any single human could do what Miles claims to have done, starting with this year.
-
hoi.polloi
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis
I am not sure I buy the argument. Since you've collected all the essays, would you mind copy-pasting them into a word processor that gives word counts and producing statistics for us? Or if not you, someone that thinks this is a good argument?
Anyway, I've been accused of being more than one person and read that "no one person" could have written the Vicsim Report. I don't consider it a compliment, and I know it's a stupid guess because I did write and edit the thing. And I only asked Simon and friends for advice now and then.
So when I hear that argument, I think it's weaker than the argument that his stuff is really just rather incomplete. Is the output really "impossible"? In my opinion, there are plenty of writers who can write, off the cuff, a large amount of words in their style. Its the content of his writings rather than the style that is important. Is the content good information or not? Often times, I don't think so, and I don't know why he mixes it with the bad. But if we are to believe he's legit, maybe his lack of "peer review" (as we do to each other on this site) contributes to his indiscriminate hit-and-miss info. (I suppose — and not saying anyone isn't doing this but — if there are good points, we ought to just reproduce them in the appropriate threads rather than piling it all in a topic about the writer. After all, the writer should not be important except for a discussion about whether he is legit or not.)
Also, this may be off topic, but what are you talking about in regards to "outing" the figure of John O'Neill? I thought that was a sort of red herring character meant to mock researchers. If we need to take that discussion out of here, I understand. It may be time we talk more about that silly PsyOp.
Anyway, I've been accused of being more than one person and read that "no one person" could have written the Vicsim Report. I don't consider it a compliment, and I know it's a stupid guess because I did write and edit the thing. And I only asked Simon and friends for advice now and then.
So when I hear that argument, I think it's weaker than the argument that his stuff is really just rather incomplete. Is the output really "impossible"? In my opinion, there are plenty of writers who can write, off the cuff, a large amount of words in their style. Its the content of his writings rather than the style that is important. Is the content good information or not? Often times, I don't think so, and I don't know why he mixes it with the bad. But if we are to believe he's legit, maybe his lack of "peer review" (as we do to each other on this site) contributes to his indiscriminate hit-and-miss info. (I suppose — and not saying anyone isn't doing this but — if there are good points, we ought to just reproduce them in the appropriate threads rather than piling it all in a topic about the writer. After all, the writer should not be important except for a discussion about whether he is legit or not.)
Also, this may be off topic, but what are you talking about in regards to "outing" the figure of John O'Neill? I thought that was a sort of red herring character meant to mock researchers. If we need to take that discussion out of here, I understand. It may be time we talk more about that silly PsyOp.