Cluesforum—Exposing Mass Deception

jumpy64 wrote:I hope you'll find it interesting...

Indeed. Thanks for sharing.

Thank you, Flabbergasted, for your interest, which I hope is shared also by other fellow members here.

Anyway, Mathis' answer to my last message (you can find it in my previous post) finally arrived yesterday, so I'm about to share that too, mainly for two reasons: 1) It made me give up any desire to ask him further questions, at least on the "Jewish Question", and 2) He mentions 9 11, and what he says about it sounds to me almost as disappointing as the rest of his message.

Here it is, with my comments in CAPITAL LETTERS:

"Yes, I may write something about either of things [SIC], if I learn anything new. You see, I only tend to write when I have something to say I haven't seen anyone else say. So I have to come across it, then I have to look and see if it is already all over the internet. The Mossad is already all over the internet"

[THE CIA IS TOO, FOR THAT MATTER, AND MUCH MORE THAN THE MOSSAD; A GOOGLE SEARCH I JUST MADE YIELDED 6.900.000 HITS FOR "MOSSAD" and 46.200.000 for "CIA INTELLIGENCE", SO I WONDER WHY HE KEEPS WRITING ABOUT THE CIA].

"That is why I haven't written much about 911, although I agree it was an inside job [HE COULDN'T HAVE USED A MORE GENERIC AND BY NOW MEANINGLESS DEFINITION] and all that [I GUESS "ALL THAT" INCLUDES THE MASSIVE AND SUBSTANTIAL RESEARCH PRESENTED IN THIS FORUM]. I haven't found anything new to say, and I don't find it useful just to regurgitate what my readers probably already know. By the time I got involved in 911 truth, most of the research had already been done [SO I GUESS HE GOT INVOLVED IN IT ONLY AFTER "SEPTEMBER CLUES" AND THE "VICSIMS REPORT" WERE REALIZED].

"I don't know anything about the Mossad that you don't already know, for instance. It looks to me that you are already up to speed on that issue, so what could I tell you?"
[LOTS OF THINGS, BECAUSE BASICALLY WHAT I KNOW IS ONLY THAT THE MOSSAD IS THE INTELLIGENCE ACENCY OF ISRAEL, AND I'M NOT JOKING!]"

Although, as I said, I like to be upfront with people and communicate directly with them, I think you guys can understand why I'm sharing my comments with you here and not with him. His answers have been so disappointing that I got discouraged.

Apart from the fact that to my knowledge he never stated clearly and publicly his position on 911 (he just answered to my direct question in a previous email that he thinks "the victims of 911 were faked", but I had to insist to get even that; and now here he sounds ambiguous again with the lame "inside job" definition), how could he avoid the Mossad question by assuming that I knew more than him about it when I told him nothing that could lead him to consider me such an expert? More in line with his own reasoning, he could have said that he hasn't written about the Mossad because he couldn't find new information about it, and maybe I could have even accepted that. But not this "all over the Internet" and "you know more than me" nonsense...

No, I'm sorry to say that I didn't see good faith in his answer, so I just wrote back to him: "Thank you for your time".

Can you blame me?

jumpy64,

It would be helpful if you used the "Quote" button for Mathis' statements and then made your comments underneath each of them.

Cheers,

anonjedi2

Thank you Anonjedi2. I tried, but it didn't come out right I guess I'll have to practice a bit...

Thanks, Jumpy64

I read his latest article and I agree with your observations. And what is this with his use of euphemisms like "financiers" and "aristocracy". There should be better words to describe these low creatures. And in the final part, he is pretending that American presidential elections are real.

I will then be asked, “OK, but why would the Rockefellers hide their heritage? Many other rich and powerful people are Jewish, and they don't hide that they are.” The answer is easy: the Rockefellers wanted to run for office. Most prominent Jewish families weren't interested in running for office especially if we are talking about the time period before say, 1950. Although he never ran for office, John D. Rockefeller considered it. We must assume he wished to keep his options open. His grandson Nelson Rockefeller became four-term governor of New York and Vice-President of the United States. He first entered political life in about 1940. At that time, it would have been very difficult or impossible to run for major office as a Jew, even in New York. Joe Lieberman was the first observant Jew to run on a major party Presidential ticket. That was 2000 with Al Gore. They lost. Rockefeller's 1964 run for President didn't go anywhere for other reasons , but had he admitted he was Jewish it would have exploded even sooner. We may assume his chances of being nominated for VP in 1974 would have also been destroyed by admitting he was a Jew. In fact he wasn't nominated, he was appointed, which is an important difference in this context. And when Ford ran in 1976, he had to dump Rockefeller from the ticket in favor of Bob Dole, due to opposition in the Republican party. Why? We are told it was because Rockefeller was too “moderate”. Right. Rockefeller was sold, as moderate—as an inside joke, I guess—but the Rockefellers were always about as moderate as Francisco Franco. Remember, Rockefeller's closest buddy was Henry Kissinger, who is about as moderate as Idi Amin. Wikipedia says, “Kissinger was later to be described as his closest,intellectual associate.” Curious that Kissinger was also a Jew, no? Anyway, Rockefeller was dumped,from the Ford ticket because he was unpopular, even in the Republican Party. It was known that his name wouldn't help any ticket.

And he still has these links to disinfo websites:

Infowars. Not the corporate media. I visit it every day.
Natural News, Scholars for 911 Truth, Ron Paul for President....

How many seconds would it take to remove them? He is aware of the importance of good links. From his own article, The Wiki-Mandarins

The search engines tend to solidify this trend, even when they may not actively support it. They show you the big sites first, the sites where all the sheep are grazing, and unfortunately there is not an advanced search that you can do at Yahoo or Google based on truth. The only method that is really proved to work, so far, is taking recommended links from sites you already trust and admire. This is to be expected and it is not my main concern here, but it is worth including as a caveat.

My stance would be that even in disinfo and eeeeven in MSM links there are good points to extract. From what I understood Miles Mathis (M-M; 13-13, for numerology lovers) is a smart guy who asks critical questions.

My take is ever to be inviting and embracing, not poking or excluding towards the real (i.e. acknowledging hoaxing and full fakery) truth seekers, even if we do not agree on certain points. We are already far too few in a world of sheeple, useful idiots and professional shills...

You're right, Selene, there can always be good points to extract even from disinfo. After all, that's what disinfo is, right? Truths mixed with lies.

In the case of Mathis, I like his writings too, and I don't even think he lies in them. He uses some misdirections, as he would call them himself, and omits something.

But what he omits could very well be one of the most important pieces in the puzzle, if not the most important, as I argue in a new topic I've just launched, titled "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on a Very Open Conspiracy".

Selene wrote:My stance would be that even in disinfo and eeeeven in MSM links there are good points to extract. From what I understood Miles Mathis (M-M; 13-13, for numerology lovers) is a smart guy who asks critical questions.

Maybe not to his recent streak of faked death articles, and the like, but it appears that Miles gives critical answers as well. Just curious, has anyone applied his physical corrections to a practical application, maybe even a tactile example? I’m not a physicist, is this possible?

THE GREATEST STANDING ERRORS IN PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS
http://milesmathis.com/index.html

DSKlausler wrote:Just curious, has anyone applied his physical corrections to a practical application, maybe even a tactile example? I’m not a physicist, is this possible?

THE GREATEST STANDING ERRORS IN PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS
http://milesmathis.com/index.html

If you read through his papers you will see that he uses an alternate interpretation of mainstream data to prove his theories. Meaning, he has deduced these physical corrections by reinterpreting real, physical data.

For instance, he claims that a new LED lightbulb that claims 230% efficiency is tapping into his "charge-field".

The mainstream explanation is this:

while MIT's diode puts out more than twice as much energy in photons as it's fed in electrons, it doesn't violate the conservation of energy because it appears to draw in heat energy from its surroundings instead. When it gets more than 100 percent electrically-efficient, it begins to cool down, stealing energy from its environment to convert into more photons.

They claim that the energy is coming from "lattice vibrations". They don't attempt to explain the cause of these vibrations.

In Mathis' model, the charge field is made up of real photons (which are in the invisible near-infrared spectrum) and heat is a function of charge density. Every atom is constantly recycling charge. Like a fan simultaneously sucking in and blowing out air. He claims that this is the mechanism behind the idea that these LEDs "steal" energy from the environment. The LED is converting the recycled charge photons to visible light. The cooling is an effect of the near-infrared photons being converted (from heat) into visible light.

I apologize if this is convoluted and hard to follow. It is difficult to explain something that is based on completely different fundamentals than people are used to.

Relevant links:
http://milesmathis.com/led.pdf
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 ... cient-leds
http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/led.cfm

Wes wrote:

DSKlausler wrote:Just curious, has anyone applied his physical corrections to a practical application, maybe even a tactile example? I’m not a physicist, is this possible?

THE GREATEST STANDING ERRORS IN PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS
http://milesmathis.com/index.html

If you read through his papers you will see that he uses an alternate interpretation of mainstream data to prove his theories. Meaning, he has deduced these physical corrections by reinterpreting real, physical data.

For instance, he claims that a new LED lightbulb that claims 230% efficiency is tapping into his "charge-field".

The mainstream explanation is this:

while MIT's diode puts out more than twice as much energy in photons as it's fed in electrons, it doesn't violate the conservation of energy because it appears to draw in heat energy from its surroundings instead. When it gets more than 100 percent electrically-efficient, it begins to cool down, stealing energy from its environment to convert into more photons.

They claim that the energy is coming from "lattice vibrations". They don't attempt to explain the cause of these vibrations.

In Mathis' model, the charge field is made up of real photons (which are in the invisible near-infrared spectrum) and heat is a function of charge density. Every atom is constantly recycling charge. Like a fan simultaneously sucking in and blowing out air. He claims that this is the mechanism behind the idea that these LEDs "steal" energy from the environment. The LED is converting the recycled charge photons to visible light. The cooling is an effect of the near-infrared photons being converted (from heat) into visible light.

I apologize if this is convoluted and hard to follow. It is difficult to explain something that is based on completely different fundamentals than people are used to.

Relevant links:
http://milesmathis.com/led.pdf
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 ... cient-leds
http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/led.cfm

I think he is on to something. If one understands that a photon is a concept and represents a unit of energy, ergo a quantum. My son sleeps with a night light I ordered from Amazon, on some days when I unplug it, it stays lit. Some days it stays lit for more than a few seconds. On other days it is not lit at all, when unplugged, as one would expect. I would highly recommend researching into Nikola Tesla and LeBon and the rest. I linked to them in another post. The point is to go back to the early days of electrical and radio research, prior to Einstein and definitely prior to World War Two.

We also have an iPhone charger and when this is unplugged, the blue light stays lit consistently each time, for a period, before going out. If we can do our own simple experiments, we are probably on the right track. That's going to be the thing, especially in this age of easily created media fakery. We will need to be able to recreate the experiments for ourselves and not just believe what we see on the screen.

The Earth has a measurable magnetic field. There are auroras, or there are supposed to be. I have never seen one myself. But we do have a good idea how ionized gas works. The 'electric universe' or 'electric Earth' is a very real thing.

ProperGander wrote: I think he is on to something. If one understands that a photon is a concept and represents a unit of energy, ergo a quantum.

I have read hundreds of pages of Mathis' physics papers and I believe he is onto something. (For what it's worth, I've also -regretfully- read hundreds if not thousands of pages written by Hawking, Kaku, etc...)

In his model, the photon is the fundamental elementary particle and it is a real, physical particle. Every other particle is simply a photon with a given number of extra, stacked spins. Essentially doubling the radius with each new outer spin. You can read more about it here: http://milesmathis.com/elecpro.html

He tackles the aurora here: http://milesmathis.com/aurora.pdf

If this interests you at all, I highly recommend reading through some of his physics papers. I am not in a position to understand everything that he discusses, but I've had many "AHA!" moments reading through his papers.

I'll read into in further when I get a chance, thanks!

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

I am very thankful that he showed the Salem withcraft trials were a hoax. I suspected this after reading the wikipedia page for the Aids topic.

Seneca wrote:Q: But if HIV does not exist or does not cause AIDS, how is it possible that AIDS (or the HIV+ status) is sexually transmitted?

A: It isn’t. But just the belief in itself would make it seem that way. Suppose you tested HIV+ (all tests can produce false positives). You are then urged to reveal all the names of the people you had sex with or warn them yourself. Each of those people will take a test. And have a certain chance of testing positive even in the absence of HIV. If they test positive they will look at their partners, and so on, and so on. So you end up with a group of HIV+ people all connected by sexual contact.
By the way, does that remind you of something? That is probably how the “witchcraft epidemics” worked, see for example the Salem witch trials (could be a hoax).

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"?

Maybe this?

Selene wrote: In answer to jumpy, you never heard of this fellow? A "true jew/Jew/cult-reli-Jew" or not, it does not seem too positive, especially not for children? Since 1959...



Selene