Discussing Miles W. Mathis

[Seneca]

As you've brought up the Irving paper I'd like to point out at least one misinterpretation. It is a minor one, but I'd like Mathis to see where he has misunderstood something Irving said:

Then notice the lie. England was never invaded during the war, so how could it be “crowded with other people's armies”? It was bombed, not invaded or occupied.

England was invaded and occupied - one by the US Army and two by the Germans in the Channel Islands. In fact, the US Army still hasn't left these shores.

Yes, I had noticed that too. I thought Irving had to be talking about the foreign armies that participated in the invasion of Normandy.
According to Wikipedia, 1.332,000 soldiers participated from 12 countries. I can't find the number of non-British soldiers involved. Only the number of American soldiers on D-Day:

"The total number of troops landed on D-Day was around 130,000[23]–156,000[24] roughly half American and the other from the Commonwealth Realms."

So I also would say Irving was not lying here, perhaps only exaggerating.

[Painterman]

File this under "Balderdash"....

To start with, look again at the basic equations

p = mv

L = rmv

Where L is the angular momentum. This equation tells us we can multiply a linear momentum by a radius and achieve an angular momentum. Is that sensible? No. It implies a big problem of scaling, for example. If r is greater than 1, the effective angular velocity is greater than the effective linear velocity. If r is less than 1, the effective angular velocity is less than the effective linear velocity. How is that logical?

Source: http://milesmathis.com/angle.html

Utter nonsense. Regardless of the value of r, angular velocity and linear velocity are measured in different units, so it's an apples-and-oranges comparison from the get-go. Whether an object's angular velocity is numerically greater or less than its linear velocity is a consequence of your choice of units and has no significance beyond that.

It's possible that Miles Mathis was part of the tsunami of handwavy fake science (in the guise of opposition to fake science) sent by the PTB (though posing as opposition to the PTB) to devastate the independent research community (while proclaiming a "renaissance" of independent research) in 2015, after years of preparation. The main target of this campaign was of course Cluesforum, as discussed elsewhere on this website.

However, in a game-changing setback for the psyop, Cluesforum confounded the experts by refusing to accommodate the "cognitive infiltration" designed to hijack this website's mission. Consequently, since about November 2015, there's been a slow withdrawal of resources from the false-friend orbit around Cluesforum - of which the otherwise inexplicable denouncement by Miles Mathis could be an example.

Whether we're looking at the outright cancellation of the handwavy fake science disinformation campaign, or merely a switch to Plan B which tries to make do without co-opting Cluesforum, remains to be seen.

[simonshack]

I hope it's ok (i.e. not frowned upon) if I share this brief private e-mail exchange with the forum's readership.
On New Year's eve I wrote this short message to Mathis :
"Hi, Miles - I'd be honored if you joined our forum.
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2398794#p2398794
Sincerely
Simon"

The next day, I received this reply :
"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 "

I wasn't at all concerned about him restoring his link 'to me' (I presume he's referring to a - now removed - link he had to September Clues / the movie), so that part of his reply is a bit funny. As for 'taking down the slander' - I really don't know how to go about such a thing. Seeing that this thread contains quite a number of posts supporting his work, am I supposed to 'prune' only those who criticize it? I don't think so - and I will just leave it at that for now. So much for my New Year's Eve 'olive branch' (not that I have ever been 'at war' with Mathis).

[jumpy64]

I hope it's ok (i.e. not frowned upon) if I share this brief private e-mail exchange with the forum's readership.
On New Year's eve I wrote this short message to Mathis :
"Hi, Miles - I'd be honored if you joined our forum.
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2398794#p2398794
Sincerely
Simon"

The next day, I received this reply :
"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 "

I wasn't at all concerned about him restoring his link 'to me' (I presume he's referring to a - now removed - link he had to September Clues / the movie), so that part of his reply is a bit funny. As for 'taking down the slander' - I really don't know how to go about such a thing. Seeing that this thread contains quite a number of posts supporting his work, am I supposed to 'prune' only those who criticize it? I don't think so - and I will just leave it at that for now. So much for my New Year's Eve 'olive branch' (not that I have ever been 'at war' with Mathis).

At this point, I'd like to know what Wes, who's been Mathis' main "advocate" here lately, thinks about Mathis' stance on Cluesforum.

Wes, do you think we've been really slandering (or libeling) him here?

Personally, I don't think so, but I'm open to a different perspective.

[Gopi]

Hey guys,

Hopped on here to check things out after talking on phone to Miles for New Year wishes, and he mentioned something about not linking Cluesforum. I told him that it was a bit disappointing, but hopefully will be able to work together in the future.

But first off, big thanks to Simon for extending his olive branch! I know it kinda went weird, but I am very glad Simon did it.

To jumpy64 and Apache, I think that there is some questioning about Miles' ideas on this forum which I personally do not believe to be slander. But what is being missed is that no one is taking into account the personality. Miles is battle-weary and a bit cranky about criticism, having spent quite a lot of time fighting off a lot of actual slander on several forums, and occasionally does push things a bit too far. He's not exactly given to social graces, and if anyone wants to take offense, he will provide plenty of opportunity for it.Yet, I think most people on the forum are missing the direct human contact, and reading far too much into all-too-human mistakes (e.g. starfish prime). If we all sit around nitpicking then everything gets stuck in circles and the purpose of all the psyops in the world will have been achieved. After all that is the purpose of a psyop, to prevent original research into the truth, and to prevent the researchers from communicating and working together. The originality of the work and the intent to dig out the truth wherever it leads should be far more important, IMHO. He is a genuine researcher.

As for Painterman, you are missing the essential point of the angular momentum question. It is not about apples and oranges, it is about 1D and 2D. Linear is 1D, rotational is 2D, and several times physicists conflate the two velocities, without admitting to it or highlighting its significance. Consider two line segments, one an inch long and another two inches long. If I take it as a series of points, I cannot distinguish between the two, as both would contain infinite number of points, right? (study Cantor for more info on this) This can lead to absurdities like saying "1=2". Newton does the same thing over and over, approximating a curve by a straight line all through his work, which has led to a lot of mischief. This is the essential concept, far from the "utter nonsense" "hand wavy fake science" "controlled opposition" etc. etc.

Simon is correct, he can pretty much write whatever he wants on the blog with no interaction. That is one extreme. Sometimes the forum can become the other extreme of groupthink, where there is a lot of back and forth for every forward step (no criticism of Cluesforum, just a tendency of forums or fora in general.) For example, an important question has to be addressed, by Miles, Simon, me and all of us: After unmasking the fakery and spreading that knowledge, which we all have been involved with, what next? What focused action can be taken to move forward?

I have offered before, and the offer still stands, to introduce and connect anyone who is interested to talk to Miles Mathis personally to do so. Not a problem with today's technology. I will be mostly meeting him again in February, and if anyone wants to send a message, I will be glad to do so. I will try to convince him to interact with at least a few individual researchers on this forum once more. I do not want to be a messenger boy like this, but in this crazy world sometimes eye-to-eye contact is irreplaceable.

[brianv]

" 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" (Simon, are you sure Brian S Staveley didn't reply to your email?)

I don't know what all the fuss is about he sounds like a drunkard. You say this guy has a blog? He cant have much of a readership with such a poor grasp of basic language skills. In fact, he has just done a very good job of slandering himself with that jailbird illiterate reply! Don't waste your time chasing after this clown!

[Apache]

Miles is battle-weary and a bit cranky about criticism, having spent quite a lot of time fighting off a lot of actual slander on several forums, and occasionally does push things a bit too far.

Yes, I've seen the appalling way in which he's been attacked in the Amazon comments section and I understand how tiresome that can get, but there are always going to be critics and writers have to become battle hardened and ignore the shills. From the Amazon comments alone I could see how dangerous they think Miles is and that, in itself, is a better endorsement of his work than a thousand positive sickly sweet praises of his name.

I think Miles needs to give CF the benefit of the doubt and not see people on here as his enemies. I have pretty much every paper he's ever written and if I had some money I'd be dropping some payment to his web kitty account. I hope to rectify that one day to truly show my appreciation of all his hard work over the years (same goes for SC).

If we all sit around nitpicking then everything gets stuck in circles and the purpose of all the psyops in the world will have been achieved.

There's a difference between nitpicking and constructive criticism. If one of Miles' paper has an obvious flaw in it, or an inaccurate assumption has been made, isn't it better to point that out so that it can be adjusted?

After all that is the purpose of a psyop, to prevent original research into the truth, and to prevent the researchers from communicating and working together.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of a psyop. It isn't to prevent original research as can be attested to by the history of revisionism. The PTB simply don't care about the minor percentage of original writers and if they communicate with each other or not. As long as the vast majority of people believe in the Big Lie they don't give two hoots about the research community.

He is a genuine researcher.

Has anyone here said that he isn't? I appreciate your attempting to support Miles, but it really is unnecessary.

Admins - maybe the title of this thread needs to be changed to something like "Miles W Mathis research papers" so that it sounds less critical?

As for the reply to Simon from Miles that the "slander" should be removed, I'm afraid Miles is going to have be a lot more specific. A general accusation of libel (the correct legal term) does no-one any good.

[Critical Mass]

Admins - maybe the title of this thread needs to be changed to something like "Miles W Mathis research papers" so that it sounds less critical?

That seems a reasonable proposal... the fella is clearly a 'sensitive' type.

As to Miles suggestion that an entire thread should be purged down the memory hole... that would seem to be a most ironic request considering the difficulties media researchers tend to face (dead links, closed websites, deleted videos, backdated stories etc).

[brianv]

Would somebody care to explain why we should be discussing this "truther" entity?

[simonshack]

Would somebody care to explain why we should be discussing this "truther" entity?

Brian, it's up to anyone to discuss it or not. If you don't wish to, don't. Simple as that. Hoi started this thread and I'm not going to lock it just because you happen to dislike it.

[Painterman]

Would somebody care to explain why we should be discussing this "truther" entity?

For the exercise, if nothing else, and because everyone in this racket is guilty until proven innocent.

I, for one, tend to think MM is not working for the bad guys, despite the red flags I mentioned earlier. He probably just slipped up and slid into a bit of nonsense physics at the wrong time, namely when a full-court-press nonsense physics "cognitive infiltration" op is underway.

[brianv]

Would somebody care to explain why we should be discussing this "truther" entity?

Brian, it's up to anyone to discuss it or not. If you don't wish to, don't. Simple as that. Hoi started this thread and I'm not going to lock it just because you happen to dislike it.

Simon, did that email reply not ring any alarm bells with you? It was like Big Ben at New Years Eve here when I read it! So why the big push on this clown recently? What is it going to gain us, talking about another Brian S Staveley?

Painterman are you trying to tell me the author of this sentence wrote a paper on Physics?

" 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"

[brianv]

milesmathis.com

Registry Registrant ID:
Registrant Name: Tom O
Registrant Organization: IKON Systems
Registrant Street: Enterprise House Marina Commercial Park
Registrant City: Cork
Registrant State/Province:
Registrant Postal Code:
Registrant Country: Ireland

http://www.ikon.ie/

Can't stop falling for the good ol' blarney can we?

[Apache]

milesmathis.com

There are 2 addresses used, the other one being http://www.mileswmathis.com

Domain Name: MILESWMATHIS.COM
Registry Domain ID: 690692329_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.enom.com
Registrar URL: http://www.enom.com
Creation Date: 2006-11-30T17:46:00.00Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2016-11-30T17:46:34.00Z
Registrar: ENOM, INC.
Registrar IANA ID: 48
Reseller: NAMECHEAP.COM
Registrant Name: MILES W. MATHIS
Registrant Organization: MIRAGE TECHNOLOGY GROUP
Registrant Street: PB 53
Registrant City: MALDEGEM
Registrant Postal Code: 9990
Registrant Country: BE
Registrant Phone: +1.473291847
Registrant Fax: 320473291847
Registrant Email: MM@MILESMATHIS.COM
Admin Name: W. MATHIS

http://website.informer.com/MILES+W.+MA ... GROUP.html

The registered address is also associated with various fine art sites. Maldegem is in Belgium, but where a site is physically registered is not necessarily where the site owner lives. It may simply be a postal address. Although the email address is a .com without the 'w', Mathis clearly uses that site as his main physics one and the other for his fakery research. Whether his website is registered in Ireland or in Belgium how does that prove that he's not who he says he is?

(Edited twice for errors.)

[brianv]

No, I guess it doesn't prove anything, but that IKON site, is not a web host! Suck it and see!

"Slander of me" proves he is not who he says he is! How does one turn into a ten year old retard?

^
This is the Mecca of Fakery Research

Why has your "MWM" entity never joined up here? He wouldn't last two fucking minutes with his bullshit, that's why!

Anyways, I have better ways to waste my time!