He was there, he is here

image The image to the left here is John Lennon, age 68, in my never-humble opinion. If you find that shocking, or imagine I must be insane, then you should probably stop reading at this point. What I have to say will challenge your assumptions not just about him, but about pop culture and the notion that our tastes are generated from the bottom-up. Quite the opposite, our cultural tastes are handed to us from above, and by power of suggestion we adopt and perceive talent as others think we should. Thus do mediocre talents like Swift and Dylan become cultural icons.

However, for the love of Pete, it appears to me that John Lennon was a talented man above all others.

The first thing you’re gonna wonder about is how come he’s standing there if he died. So it is left to me to explain the concept of fake death. Suspend judgment for a few moments, if you will. I don’t think I am crazy, though I might be the last to know if I am. There’s always that.

If Lennon were a natural phenomenon like, say, Paul Simon or Leonard Cohen, someone of great ability who earned a prominent place in our culture through hard work and native talent, there would be no interference and he could have lived out his life in fame or obscurity, wherever his natural abilities took him.

But Lennon, or more so, the Beatles, were not a natural phenomenon. They were spotted, recruited, trained, styled, and given us as a natural product by British Intelligence, capital “I.”  They were handed songs written by others, and allowed to perform them as if they were their own. Beyond the music, they were charged with creating good feelings in the U.S. for the British, something not natural or even common in our history. Most often, the British have been reviled, and for good reason. When they were not making war on us themselves, they manipulated us into making disastrous wars on others. People rightly hated them.

Beyond music and affections, the Beatles changed our manner of dress and introduced the use of drugs, specifically LSD, into mainstream culture. But groups grow old and popularity wanes, and icons have to be replaced by new icons. Most just fade into the background, but certain of them, like Elvis, Michael Jackson, Kurt Cobain, and John Lennon create such a stir (or are so hard to manage) that they have to be retired from public view. Fake death is always an option, as others can be invented to take their place.

I should note here that the Beatles were charming men and gifted performers. They were naturals for the role assigned them.


Lennon is wearing a wig in the photo above. If you look closely at the hairline, you’ll see a tell-tale line. He might be bald, or they might have had other reasons for doing such a sloppy job putting hair on him.

LHB-DVD-PNG-230x300The movie, “Let Him Be” is about a mythical quest to find the living John Lennon. It was released in 2009 and quickly suppressed. I suspect I know why. There was then a Lennon impersonator about whose name was Mark Staycer, and it is my belief that Staycer really is (or was) John Lennon. His biography is short and offers no clue about his whereabouts now.

This is the crux of the matter: Was Lennon shot in 1980? Did he recover from his wounds? Far more likely, he not even at the Dakota that night. The whole event was staged.

This is the underlying ruse behind  Let Him Be, that he really did die in 1980, and the movie is just toying with our emotions, willing him back to life.  But the notion that an impersonator came along who not only sounded like him in every detail, but was able to wear a mask and look like him in performance … tests our credulity on the other side of the equation. Yes, there are impersonators out there for every famous person, but how many look just like them, sound just like them, behave just like them? Even Andy Kaufman, who did the best imitation of Elvis around (in the opinion of Elvis, anyway), was easily distinguished from him.

I think they had a problem with the movie. Lennon was too damned good, was so much like Lennon that they could not let the movie gain wide exposure. Shortly after release, it was pulled back. It is now available in DVD from a Canadian outlet, along with the soundtrack. (I ordered the soundtrack several weeks ago, but it is yet to arrive.)

You might imagine that wishful thinking can bring a dead pop icon to life. That’s what I thought too. I was a huge Lennon fan in my youth, as were millions. When I first saw the title of a Miles Mathis paper, “Proof That John Lennon Faked His Death,” I did not buy it. At 50 pages typewritten, the paper is equivalent to a 100 page book, so if you’re looking for a quick read, don’t go there. Set aside some time.

Mathis does a detailed photo analysis, comparing nose, moles, ears, fingers, teeth and even guitar grip. Even after reading the paper twice, I held back, as we tend to read into photos what we are told we see rather than what is really there. We are, all of us, even those of us aware of the phenomenon, suggestible.

So I sent away for the movie, and have watched it three times now. It slowly settled in on me. It is him. It is unmistakable. No one can be that good, to both look and sound just like him. My senses, which are dependable, tell me that this man in the movie is either a hologram or the real deal.

Fake deaths are more common than we know, and done for various reasons, some having to to with intelligence agencies running PSYOPS on us. But other times the reason is pure greed. John Lennon, Michael Jackson, Elvis have all been bonanzas for promoters in “death.” Real living pop stars age, go out of style, and have to be kept in lush lifestyles to maintain the illusion that they earned their lofty position.

The Beatles were far from natural. Did it ever occur to us that Lennon and McCartney were incapable as young boys if turning out one marvelous hit after another? George Harrison may have been the most talented man in the group, as he apparently was left to his own devices and had to churn out his own compositions, some of which in later years were very good. That is more normal – a talented man working his ass off to develop his skills,  taking years, and finally producing quality material. But for two men in their early twenties to turn out a couple of hundred songs in a few short years, while not impossible, is highly unlikely. The Beatles were the work of a committee. (A comparable phenomenon in the United States was the Monkees, openly admitted to be a front group for other talent.)

imageLennon had become a pop icon of huge importance, aside from his music. His image had such power that it could alter history. No doubt with Lennon the decision that he had to “die” was controversial. He surely was not in favor of it, but he was not in charge of his own life. They created him, they could kill him too.

Whatever happened that night in 1980, he was not shot, was most likely not even there. I learned (or realized) in recent months, that CIA has tentacles in every aspect of our lives, and one of the most important pivot points for them is to own and control the position of coroner’s office in our major cities. So if your first objection is that the natural legal proceedings surrounding death would uncover a hoax like this, think again.

Mark David Chapman, the ghostly image next to Lennon in the (faked) photograph above, did not shoot him, and is not in prison. I have viewed photos of Chapman, and it appears several people are assuming that identity, playing that part. See for yourself, noting that shape of the faces, the height, and the date on the photos. (Undated photos are studio fakes, that is, prison photos always have the height indicator in the background, along with date and time.) Chapman has grown and shrunk, changed the shape of his face over the years. If they can fake a death, they can fake a perpetrator, and in the public mind place that perpetrator in prison. After all, he is but an image on our screens.

Why did they make the movie? I don’t know, of course. It was risky. I speculate the following: Lennon had real talent, and people behind the scenes who supported his career liked and admired him. The decision to end him in 1980 was controversial. Lennon went along with it, of course, as to do otherwise risked his life for real. These are not nice people, these spooks. Further, as he looked about, he saw a very gullible American public, so much so that a fake (white!) Michael Jackson could be successfully foisted on us. He thought he could pull this off.

In 2008, when the movie was made, he was 68 years old. He was at that time appearing on small forums as Mark Staycer, but wanted another shot at the big stage. His MI6 handlers, who were aware of his life in Canada, would say no, as it was too risky. Too much was at stake, and too many other faked deaths and stars who owe their fame to the spooks might be exposed.

But later some people came up with an idea, a riddle inside a riddle. They would task the Lennon “impersonator,” “Mark Staycer” as “Noel Snow” (surely an anagram of some sort) and overlay him on the real Lennon. The performer would become his own impersonator. Later, in the “how we did it” footage, we would be shown what looks like a death mask, and be told that Staycer wore it the in the filming.

On that premise, they made the movie, cut it and released it.

The problem: Lennon was too damned good. He was still a great performer, quick on his feet. He still owned the room when he picked up his guitar. Shortly after release of the movie, it was pulled back.

Lennon is still, in the movie, a heavy smoker, which could be part of the script, or real. I wonder if he got the tap on the shoulder, perhaps found out he was dying for real. Mark Staycer has disappeared now too.

Expert textpert choking smokers
Don’t you think the joker laughs at you ?

Who knows?* Here are some lyrics from “I Was There,” the powerful song played throughout the movie.

Hey there’s talk about Misha’s eyes
and the secrets that lie within.
Check the stories from the boys in blue:
it’s a must that you meet them.
Let’s have the truth and lose the lies;
are you listening FBI?
It won’t be long, I can’t say when:
I may go, but I’m not gone.

If I were you and you were me
like Catcher in the Rye.
You took a thief without a life
you can run but I can’t hide.
Yah, there’s talk about all my life,
that night the Apple took a bite.
I was there. I was there. I was there.

And this, from a haunting song called “Wrap Your Arms Around Me:”

I am who I was once
I am as you see
You make it make sense now.

I want to believe that Lennon really wrote some of the compositions from his time in the Beatles, like Julia, Happiness is a Warm Gun, and Across the Universe. Here is his haunting, taunting post-Beatles song “God:”

The dream is over
What can I say?
The dream is over
I was the dreamweaver
But now I’m reborn
I was the Walrus
But now I’m John
And so dear friends
You’ll just have to carry on
The Dream is over.

It’s a riddle, of course, and he did love riddles. I can be fooled, as I want to believe he lived a full life. This is part of the allure of the movie. So I suggest that if you are a healthy skeptic, you’re going to want to easily dismiss this piece and me. I understand that. All I suggest, then, is that you send away for the movie while it is still available, watch it and listen to the sound track.

You’ll be less comfortable after that.
*Mathis says he would bet anyone that Lennon was around last year to celebrate his 75th bash.

35 thoughts on “He was there, he is here

    1. Your post was spammed. I have mentioned this before – there is something about your personal details where you are getting caught in spam filters. I did nothing, but this has happened before here with you, and with Pogreba. Secondly, the comment appears down below, under the post below this, as you put it on the wrong thread. You might want to copy it up here.

      I’ll get to it later today or tomorrow. I look forward to a debate on this topic. I’ve read perhaps a thousand of pages of Mathis now, and I’ve only taken up some of the obvious things – that Lennon wasn’t killed, Hawking is dead, and Michael Jackson was replaced. That all seems obvious to me. Much of the rest just sits on my oven, simmering, not sure what yo make of it. He and I have similar backgrounds, having OD’d on Chomsky for years, admired Hitchens and Cockburn only to find them later repulsive, and having slummed around in all of the 9/11 stuff, actually reading and thinking for ourselves and learning who is a liar, who is not. So I am not likely to be bought off by someone else’s notion that his is a fraud. I have a brain of my own and use it.

      Frankly, I get kind of a Pete Talbot sense from your initial words. He is the guy who says that we first look to some authority figure before trusting a source, as if we cannot think our own thoughts. It is, according to Pete, all about the source rather than use of one’s own brain, sifting of a wide variety of evidence, and the quality of that evidence. It is about evidence and our brains. The convincing evidence for me was watching, three times, the movie Let Him Be. I doubt you’ve seen it, right?

      We should have a food fight, however. Will be fun. I am busy making picture frames today.


  1. Mark, I think you’re kinda trolling here with this post. So I’ll give one more attempt to help you see through the hucksterism that Mathis utilizes. And I’m not going to debate any evidence or opinion Mathis writes, as it is his integrity and accuracy that I need to ascertain before I’ll entertain any of his ideas.

    First off, here is a good critique of Mathis that I mostly agree with


    But I have some real issues with specific topics that Mathis touches on. First off, the pi=4 pseudoscience to me is nothing more than a “if I can get you to believe this, I can get you to believe anything.” It is arrogant pseudo science no less pathetic than that of climate change deniers or creationists.

    Next off, Watergate. Mathis makes some assertions like the following in his Watergate paper:

    “in all the books and investigations I have seen, Watergate is never put in any proper historical context. If a context is built, it is built quickly and with no logic. All the fundamental facts are suppressed or spun, and only the minor details are studied closely. ”

    Having just finished reading Russ Baker’s “Family of Secrets”, Mathis either 1) didn’t read Baker’s book — one of the best reads on the intersection of spy craft, politics and capitalism that absolutely did put Watergate in a proper historical context; or 2) he did read it and just doesn’t want to acknowledge that most of his assertions and conclusions about Watergate and the CIA were well documented and written about by Baker. But whatever…

    Then there’s his assertions that he was a worker for Earth First! as a canvasser. Well, anyone who ever did spend some time with EF! would know he is either an agent provocateur, or is lying as 1) EF! never did any canvassing (canvass for what???), and 2) EF! never paid anyone for working. So if he really wants to claim he “worked” for EF!, I have to ask just who paid him, and to do what? Sounds like another FBI or BATF infiltrator if he really was involved with EF!, which of course, there is no evidence other than his say-so. My take is that he was just another agent provocateur.

    Then there’s the Unabomber. He makes false assertions that the Unabomber was used to take down Earth First! Another laugher! I guess he can’t be bothered to do any real research into the matter. When the Unabomber arrest happened, I received a phone call from CNN at my then place of work stating that they had linked Kaczynski to several of the activist groups I worked and volunteered for — including EF! Seems that they found some of our literature in his cabin outside of Lincoln. Made for an interesting phone interview… but I digress.

    Well, once we knew his identity, it was simple for me to go back through some of our records, and indeed, we had him listed as attending one of our conferences at the UofM, where he obviously picked up our literature. Several of us remembered him by name and sight once we saw his pictures and video. So there was no planting of that evidence as Mathis asserts. As to the rest of the scenario behind Kaczynski’s arrest, far be it from me to say that it is a straight up case. Of course, the potential was there for the feds to tilt the case however they wanted — but to take down EF!? Hardly.

    Then there are Mathis’ assertions that the cabin and Ted’s presence in Lincoln being a hoax. Well, I happen to know several people who live in Lincoln who corroborate his presence there, and that he lived in the small cabin outside of town. A good friend of mine showed up during the arrest of Kaczynski in Lincoln, and documented the whole thing and the trip to Helena and the perp walk past journalists to the booking room. His footage was what was used in the national media, as they were all scooped. It is not staged as Mathis claims.

    Then there is Mathis’ assertion that “Although EarthFirst! is still around, they were seriously hurt by the Unabomber manifesto and Kaczynski’s trial, where he quoted from the EarthFirst! Journal.” Well, no. EF! was not “seriously hurt” by the Unabomber — didn’t affect it at all (remember that for several years prior to the Unabomber’s arrest, the EF! Journal was headquartered in Missoula, and I was part of the collective responsible for putting it out, so I have some knowledge here). Far worse things happened to EF! that didn’t really phaze it. For him to assert that, is to show how he just pulls stuff out his ass and uses his assertions as fact and proof.

    I’ve already said my piece about the Lennon story you wrote about above, so I won’t go there again.

    Mathis is a huckster and a snake oil salesman. He uses a lot of misdirection in his essays to deflect attention away from important points, and focuses on trivial things to assert whatever his conspiracy du jour is. His is dishonest, and disingenuous. This is not to say that there may not be some truth to part of what he writes, but why sift through all the disinformation to find a nugget of truth? As the link above suggests, his purpose is to discredit the conspiracy theorist world, as his works are all just enough off to discredit each and every one (that I looked at). If nothing else, his style is reminiscent of a card shark sucking in a new mark, setting him up for the big blow.

    I would never hang my reputatational hat on anything that Mathis writes without independent verification. And with that verification (as with Baker’s “Family of Secrets”) a whole lot better and more understandable scenario and narrative is laid out that can’t be trivialized by any who want to pay attention.


    1. Phew! A lot to cover. I hope you’re not doing a storm-in storm-out, as that would be beneath you. So before I take time to answer the many accusations made at September Clues and by you here concerning Earth First! (which I have long suspected of being dupes manipulated by Intelligence to discredit the environmental movement – I think that ALL BY MYSELF because I have a brain and try to use it) – I need to see if you are coming back. Because I have a simmering desire right now to take you apart piece by piece.

      Let me know. (Just realized, we have covered this before, nothing new.)


    2. By the way, as I said a long ways back, I read Russ Baker’s book a couple of years ago, and even contributed to his organization for a year or so, but after listening to a couple of interviews I began to find him timid about things like 9/11, and then realized that he had told us nothing new in his book, a typical disinfo agent ploy. So I got no use for Baker at this time until he does something new and interesting. So far, not.


  2. Nothing new in his book? Really? Just because he isn’t a good speaker doesn’t mean diddly when it comes to what he did. He put together a ton of information — some of it new — in a new way. You may find that irrelevant, but I find his work to be very illuminating. He may not have gone as far as you wanted with some things, or isn’t revealing what he is writing about yet in his interviews, but his book is good.

    As to whether or not what I said was a hit and run piece, here is where I stand. Refute what I wrote or not. It’s your choice. I have no desire to debate whether or not Mathis is right or wrong. He appears to be nothing more than an agent provocateur to me, based on his EF! statements. He purports to be a scientist, yet he uses pseudoscience to make silly fake claims about known facts (like pi=4).

    So defend Mathis if you must. But I don’t care to look at any of his evidence, because the majority of it I have found wanting. Continued reading basically is a waste of time, and I’ve read 6 or 7 of his articles already. He has very poor writing skills (any technical editor like myself would reduce his word count by about 60-70% as that much is irrelevant to his theses).

    You can want to believe him enough to try and defend him, but the burden of proof is on you. He disclaims all his writings with the “this is just my opinion” preface. That is a huge red flag. If he were to say, here is my thesis, this is my research, and these are my conclusions, then we could talk. But he doesn’t. He makes an assertion, gives his opinion with a bunch of suspect facts, some of which may be true or “borrowed” (as with all of his Watergate/CIA material, and then gives a bunch of stream-of-thought irrelevant babble to make his reader think he is intelligent. Then he acts as though he has proven something, when all he has done is to do a bunch of circular reasoning that brings him back to his assertion, so he accepts it as fact.

    Mark, if any of the red flags he raises — just his EF! proclamation points him out as being an agent provocateur — were something you noticed in another writer, you’d pan them immediately. I guess I have to ask you why you go so easy on Mathis, while you are so hard on everybody else? What is it in you that makes you really want to believe him, when he so obviously (to many people, even other conspiracy theorists) is not what he purports to be?


    1. I did not say Baker was a poor speaker. I was referring to content. I enjoyed his book but had long arrived at where he was at, as had so many, many others. I knew Watergate was coup d’etat years ago, and realizing that opens up a floodgate of contradictions, all of which have to be addressed. That takes years of reading and thinking. Some of the most important things that I’ve come to understand these past years have to do with disinfo agents and false leaders. September Clues is disinformation, door #2 stuff. Earth First! was infiltrated and used to discredit the environmental movement, as are all of the prominent groups, so that no matter where you turn, you’re bought in.

      I’ve come to like Mathis because he reminds me of me. He’s got his own brain and uses it in his own way to unravel mysteries. He does not rely on authority figures. He does not pander to his readers, saying that his pieces are his opinions, or proof enough for him and you’re on your own. The whole concept of “proof” is nuts and nonsense anyway, as it demands something that life does not provide: Absolute certainty. That’s a security blanket. We don’t get those in the real world. We have to sift and sort through volumes of information, much of it lies designed to comfort you. We have to use our own brains. I have done this for years now, and have come to believe in myself, my thoughts, my ideas. I have run across a few others I suspect to be genuine as well, and am pretty good at spotting phonies (which is why Kailey attacked me in the manner he did). We search for truth, no matter where it leads, as Ed Abbey, supposedly the inspiration for EF! Would have us do. His words. Not mine.

      In reading Mathis I enjoy his cadence and meanderings. That’s how I write. I cannot tell what my next sentence will be, as my fingers do my work for me. I see that in Mathis. I don’t believe in him, as I don’t believe in anyone, including you, until I see evidence of honesty, a real and genuine pursuit of truth, no matter where it leads. Thus did I lose interest in Earth First!, September Clues and Russ Baker. I sensed lack of interest in pursuit of truth. I sensed a con game. I trust my own judgment.

      And I have told you I don’t care about his opinions on science and art, as I don’t have the background to make sound judgment. I’ve read some of that stuff, but since I didn’t understand regular physics and am not a technical critic of art, I just let it rest. I told you that but it either didn’t sink in, or you are just another person who skims without absorbing content. I told you that but you rehashed its if it were all fresh.

      So anyway, and again, I told you this before, I let everything he has written simmer, as I don’t know what to make of it except three things that are open and obvious: Michael Jackson was replaced by a white guy, Stephen Hawking is dead, and John Lennon did not die in 1980. Each of those matters (Hawking especially), for which evidence is compelling, opens up mountains of contradictions that need to be investigated by thoughtful people. God knows where it will take you, but pursuit of truth is like that. It can be unnerving.

      Along comes you who holds up one photo of Lennon’s hands (done by a “debunker” I suspect) and calls it “proof!” WTF? You don’t get to do that. It’s sloppy as hell, an avoids looking at all of the other evidence, which is compelling. And there’s that word … “Proof.”

      You don’t want to debate? I get that. Not too many do. It is uncomfortable. It challenges assumptions, requires integrity and rigor. Most people would rather stay home, rely on authority sources rather than think, and avoid debate. I get that. Swede, Pogie, Pete, Craig, Kurtz … All of them vamoose at the first sign of debate, and never challenge their own assumptions. Et tu JC?

      See now, I wrote that whole thing not knowing where it would take me.


      1. Tell me how Mathis being an agent provocateur, by claiming to be paid by EF! for canvassing, makes him worthy of pursuit? Those of us in EF! laughed at canvassers who worked for mainstream organizations. EF! paid no one. Mathis claims to have been paid to canvass for EF!. So either he’s a liar, in which case I really want nothing to do with him, he’s an infiltrator, or he’s too dumb to realize he’s being paid by govt. spooks to do some dirty work within EF!

        In any case, his statements about EF! alone are worthy of a close look. Give him the same critical treatment you do all else who you pan for single incidents of apostasy. And then tell me why I shouldn’t just view him as another government/corporate tool?


      2. You want to argue about picayune details! The EF! thing could easily be semantics, as saying “worked for” means “worked for” in the same manner I worked my ass of for Nader, but not for pay. I went door-to-door, but not for pay, but I did work for him. And as I said, all mainstream environmental groups are infiltrated. I get the distinct feeling that you don’t read what is written. Quite alone, ON MY OWN, years ago, I decided that EF! was counterproductive and being used for provocation purposes, just as hippies were to undermine the antiwar movement.

        I have shelved so much of his stuff, the Camelot paper, the Little Big Horn and Bay of Pigs papers, the Manson affair, not because I automatically doubt, but rather because in the future I will be looking for corroboration of his work with my own reading and thoughts and that of others. So I will say one more time – Lennon, Jackson, and Hawking are the three items of his that are to me slam-dunk no brainers. You want to talk about everything but those items, which are all I care about. It might interest you that I became convinced about Lennon not by reading Mathis as much as by viewing Let Him Be three times. This is now the third time I’ve said that.

        And again, I don’t care about his science or art. That is all for better minds than mine.


        1. I haven’t looked at the Jackson article, and most likely won’t. Te Hawking and Lennon articles used phony, doctored photos to make a point, and came to incorrect conclusions about other photo evidence — like I pointed out to you. I am a photoshop expert (I get paid good money to do this, among other things). I know how to analyze, manipulate and doctor photos. I can see when others do so. My opinion differs from yours and Mathis’, neither of you are photoshop experts.

          You can come to whatever conclusion or opinion of EF! you want. EF! was not a “mainstream environmental group.” They never canvassed. We looked at people like Mathis, and painted a big scarlet “FED” on them. Mathis is not who he says he is, so I look at everything he writes as suspect, and with ulterior purpose. Follow him down the rabbit hole if you like his writing. I don’t have any problem with that. Just don’t ask me to go there with you.

          So, you don’t want to debate his “science.” Well, I do. Go and grab a piece of string, and wrap it around a cylindrical object, and measure the circumference. Then measure the diameter — the distance across the circle or circular object. Then divide the circumference by the diameter. That is what pi is by definition: the circumference of a circle divided by its diameter. Everybody else in the known universe comes up with a number approximating 3.14… Mathis postulates that pi=4, and then engages in one of his horribly rambling diatribes to convince you of that.

          If you can’t see that pi does not equal 4, then you are allowing Mathis to run circles around his audience. Mathis’ assertion that pi=4 is the biggest red flag that he does not rely on science or math like the rest of the known world does — he engages in pseudo science no worse that climate deniers or creationists. Now I’ve said this several times. You may not be a scientist, but go do the measurements I outlined above, and do the math. If you ever come up with pi=4, I will read and debate the Mathis article of your choice.


          1. There is a whole school of thought out there that disputes physics as handed down to us in school. I want no part of that debate, as either side is handed down from on high, and I have no ability to verify anything. It is, from my point of view, like debating the number of rocks atop Mount Everest. Since I cannot go there, why should I care?

            I am getting a bad feeling here – first you tell me you’re an expert in physics, and now Photoshop and now you read 20-40k words a day outside the mainstream. Yet you did not read the Lennon paper. I know this because that is where the Jackson material is contained. I’m getting a little nervous here.

            Anyway, I can look at and analyze photos, in fact did so for the San Bernardino fake event, easily satisfying myself that the victim I studied, Sierra Clayborn, was not a real person. I don’t need to be a Photoshop “expert” to do that. I just used my brain, fer crissakes. I don’t need to know how it is done. If I can see that it is done, I see quite enough.


            You have told me that he faked photos, but which ones? You say he came to incorrect conclusions. Which ones? Point them out to me. These general assertions without evidence mean nothing to me. (It did not take photo evidence to convince me that Hawking had died. That was a no-brainer. He had ALS. The coincidence in him being treated as an important final-word physicist and his being the longest ever survivor or ALS is too big to be real. That he lived until 1985 is remarkable.) That he is now being ghosted by an impostor is HUGE. That opens up a whole new matter for inquiry. Why are they pulling this hoax on us?

            I understand your not wanting to debate me – few people do. Pete even went so far as to hide out at ID. But it is the only way we ever flesh out differences. If your views are consistent and hold water, you won’t be upended. Why the fear? (And don’t go there – we all have time. People suddenly get very busy when their views are challenged.)


      3. Won’t soon forget that you accused me of trolling by writing on my own blog, as if this post was aimed at you! I’ve been sitting on it for over a week, and finally decided to cut it loose because it made sense to me. My posts go to over 300 followers, a few of whom might actually read them.


        1. “I think you’re kinda trolling here” was an offhanded way of me acknowledging that if I commented, we’d get into this debate. So don’t take it personally. I could have just as easily ignored your post. But I didn’t because I thought you’d appreciate a different take on Mathis, and maybe a debate on his veracity. And I expected you wouldn’t take it well. That’s OK. You read who you want, and I’ll continue to read who I want, and I read widely probably 20-40k words a day outside of the mainstream.


    1. I addressed concerns about the author, one that his education and background looks spooky, two that he (like Russ Baker) brings up nothing new, three that he fails to out obvious agents provocateur, four that his book skated into print where real dissident work rarely finds a publisher.* What is wrong with expressing those concerns before reading it, which I am doing as we speak? It means my skepticism is in place. And you know I will finish it since I am challenged to do so.

      JC’s been a disappointment here, not having read the matter in question but claiming to, quite different, and being a moving target using appeals to his own authority (an expert in physics and photoshop) to shut me up. He has not even read the comments before responding. That is a Swedish move. Mathis presents a large body of evidence and more than a few quandaries and red flags himself, so I honed in in three slam dunks, ignoring the rest, letting time fill in the details. JC, based in his investment in EF!, which was I concluded years ago was a compromised group, has thrown out the entire avenue of inquiry based in just that. Not scholarly, not rigorous at all. He based his dismissal of the Lennon inquiry based on one suspect photograph brought in from a debunker, Pete style, without having examined the 100 book-pages of evidence. He then closed the whole book in the Mathis affair, saying he will not be read anymore than he has, which is not much. All very disappointing in my view.

      *A quick visit to the publisher’s web site revealed that the guy who runs it is the son of an intelligence agent, a former OSS guy. That pattern repeats ad nauseum, as McGowan found.


      1. “No matter where you are living, you have been infiltrated. There is no place left to hide. The spooks are everywhere, and no, they have nothing better to do than fuck with you. That is their job.” — Miles Mathis

        Hiding in plain site. Miles Mathis is here to fuck with you.


        1. I am not so sure. I have read hundreds and hundreds of pages of his work. I like his writing style. I like his sharp mind and wit. And, I think I have said this before, I have found three subject on which he is dead-on – Lennon, Jackson, and Hawking. Have I said that before – that these are the only subjects I have broached? Have I said that before?

          Anyway, if you can claim expertise in physics and Photoshop, I’ll throw another are of expertise at you – I have a long background reading about spies and spooks, CIA and its predecessors, going back not months, but years, even decades. I am talking about infiltration of entertainment, news, Hollywood, music, literature and poetry, history, elections, PSYOPS, false flag events – you name it, I’ve read about it – hell – maybe as much as 20-40K a day!

          SO when Mathis makes a statement like that, I don’t have to be convinced. I was already in agreement with him


      2. Mark, why make it personal? If you won’t debate pi=4, why should I debate anything else? And by the way, pi isn’t physics, it’s basic geometry that even the Babylonians and Egyptians were investigating 4,000 years ago. But since Mathis is more brilliant than the sum of human intelligence, I guess we should just bow down.

        There’s another guy who’s been down this path, J.R. “Bob” Dobbs and the Church of the SubGenius. Mathis is jut the newest incarnation of this sort of phenomenon.


        1. JC, please read the comment that follows:

          I did not make it personal, and have stuck to the facts as outlined in my comments above. I can read between the lines and know you did not read the Lennon paper, or at least beyond the first few pages. Stating that is not personal. If you did read it, then your attention to detail is limited, as quite a bit of the end of it deals with the Beatles ownership of their music, and the fact that Michael Jackson ended up owning it for a song. He does not do any photographic work on Jackson, but any damned fool and see that the white guy who died recently was not the guy who did Thriller.

          Your references to your abilities in physics and PhotoShop, without delving into detail, only saying that you’re an expert and that I should yield to your judgment, are appeals to authority. I ignored them.

          And once again, since you apparently do not read comments, I have landed only on three items of Mathis: Lennon, Jackson, and Hawking. I wrote about Lennon here and briefly mentioned Jackson. I wrote about Hawking on another post. I have not written about anything else by Mathis, as I said in the comments above, they are on simmer as see over time if there is corroboration and using my own brain to cogitate on matters like Camelot, Little Big Horn, Bay of Pigs, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, Karl Marx, John Reed, and the host of other matters of his that I have read and do not know to agree with.

          Since I chose to write on those three items, for which I believe evidence is compelling, why do you keep throwing other matters in my face? I don’t care about them. I am not a mathematician (CPA’s do arithmetic) nor a physicist, and all of those matters are above my pay grade. OK?


  3. Ok, here’s an easy one. Mathis makes the following assertion about 911 in “Analysis of the Evan Fairbanks Video”:

    In the famous Fairbanks footage there is a reflection of the plane in the wall behind the man who looks up…
    First I checked to be sure it was perfectly synchronized with the plane above, which it is, close enough. Then I noticed that it was reversed, with the whiter wing below (whereas in the image above, the whiter wing is above). At first I thought this was confirmation, until I thought about it some more.
    Finally I realized that there is no way for a reflection to be there at all. There is no way for a reflection of the plane to appear on that surface. That surface is nearer to us, the viewer, than the WTC Tower behind it. The airplane is crashing into the WTC and is therefore in the same optical plane as the tower. You cannot create a reflection in a mirror that is nearer to you, of an object that is farther away from you than the mirror.

    Just consider how the light would travel from the plane to the camera. There is no possible angle that it can reflect from that surface. Whoever decided to manipulate this film treats that surface as if it were just behind the WTC, in which case it might reflect a same-size image like this. As it is, it can’t reflect any size image since the image cannot bounce from that surface and reach our eye, or the camera.

    And even if the wall had been slightly behind the WTC, this still would not have caused the reflection to reverse. In that case we would see an unreversed image. The mirrored wall would have to slope back at some angle (about 45 degrees, in this case), in order to send any image of the plane to the camera, but the image would not be reversed. It would be just like the primary image, only squashed vertically a bit.

    The only way you would get a reversed image is if the airplane were being reflected in a pool directly below the tower. But in order to see that reversed image, you would have to be looking at both the plane and its reflection from some height above the ground. You cannot see a reflection in a pool from ground level, unless you are right at the edge of the pool.

    Mathis makes a horrible error here, saying the reflection to which he refers is cast “in the wall behind the man.” But if you look at the video, you see plainly that the reflection is from the swept back windshield of a car — not a wall. And a tilted windshield indeed is capable of casting a reflection of a tall building behind it.

    Then he makes the assertion that a reflection would not show a reversed (flipped) image. It sure the hell would. Setup a mirror tilted vertically at a 45 degree angle or so away from you. Move up towards a wall with a picture or painting on it. Move the mirror and your viewing angle until you can see the picture — it’s upside down. Mathis doesn’t even have the basic skills to realize that a reflection would be reversed in the image that the video takes, and he calls himself a “physicist.” Pretty sloppy reasoning if you ask me.

    So Mathis does this sleigh of hand trick convincing people that his assertions are true, when they are plainly wrong (mistaking a windshield for a wall), and then concluding that the plane is a fake. I don’t even have to deal with the controversy over the video and what it may/may not show or how it may or may not be a faked/altered video. I just know that Mathis is a dishonest purveyor of malformed ideas using bad logic.

    So, here’s another debate: I read the whole (short) Mathis piece. Prove Mathis was right in saying that the reflection was on a wall, not a car windshield, and that even a tilted mirrored surface wouldn’t show a flipped image, and I’ll debate you on the article of your choice.

    Here’s the Fairbanks video in case any one else is paying attention and cares about this “debate.” The reflection in the “wall” that Mathis “debunks” comes at 2:16.

    He’s just another flim-flam man.


    1. Again, you’re refusing to deal with the three items I mentioned. Why?

      As a test of Mathis’ creds, I submitted to him twice now links to Dr. Wood’s Where Did the Towers Go. She wrote a 500 page textbook on the subject of the towers, and I have read it in detail. She deals strictly in science, and does not speculate as to who did it or why. Using my own brain, I have become convinced that she is a genuine scientist and honest researcher and uncovered important evidence with her work, took it to court, and sued NIST. No one else has bothered to do that – sue the liars about their lies. I am also impressed with a small cadre of people who support her work. The larger 9/11 Truth Movement is bogus.

      I have not heard back form him on that matter, but he did say in a recent paper that he is pulling away from September Clues and Alex Jones and Veterans Today, all signs that Mathis is beginning to understand who the liars are. He has not done any 9/11 work in years.

      You’re right, it is a car window, and it is possible for the reflected image to appear if the angles are just right. It appears to me, however, the the window is not tilted enough to reflect the building as it does, so that the image in the car window, like the plane itself, was probably superimposed.

      This does not make him a flim flam man. It makes him in error. Jesus you’ve got a boner for this guy. All over EF!?

      Honestly, if you can claim expertise in physics and Photoshop, I can claim expertise on 9/11, as I have read and studied and thought about it more than anyone I know. I am surprised people are still arguing about planes hitting buildings. There were none in New York, Washington or Pennsylvania. Even if there were, any physicist would know that what happened to those seven buildings with the WTC prefix destroyed that day required introduction of new energy, as that stored in the structures could not have produced free-fall. Further, it was not done with bombs (not enough debris), nukes (not enough heat), thermite (produces intense light, absent). Therefore, it had to be something else. Enter Dr. Wood.


      1. I’m not debating 911. I know that the official story is a lie, and that a lot of other people have a lot of interesting material — including Wood. But I made some statements about the photo “evidence” he was using to bolster his opinion. I saw problems with those photos, and said so, but you poo-poo’d it. So I’ve looked at a bunch of Mathis’ other stuff to see if there was any real meat in what he had to say, and everywhere I looked it was the same sloppy thinking. And Fairbanks video shows that sloppiness. So, everywhere I encounter Mathis, he’s going to get the third degree, as he makes a mockery of math and physics, but just enough people believe him to make him as dangerous as any creationist or climate denier.

        Read him if you like, he’s good entertainment if you like his style. I’d like to see the Let Him Be video, but I refuse to pay for it — I’m a poor person. I’ll come across it somewhere and I’ll see what I think about Staycer. Studying guitar and guitar players is one of my hobbies, so it would be interesting to see. I’m also involved in a major documentary film festival, so that aspect of it would be fun.


        1. Having read hundreds of pages of his work, I don’t find sloppy thinking. My own brain and his seem to be in sync, but him at a higher pay grade. For the life of me, for instance, CIA showing Church Committee a gun that induces a heart attack without traceability … It did it not occur to me that they were laying down a gauntlet. But it is obvious. Every member of Congress who saw that display, who had a brain, took it in.

          Jackson, Lennon, Hawking … All pretty damned obvious, but things I did not see. If Mathis did, and I slap my forehead, am I wrong to put all his other work on the back burner, let it marinate?


          1. The Fairbanks piece by Mathis is sloppy thinking and reasoning. How could it not be? The guy purports to be a genius physicist, yet he committed a horrible observational error, and misapplied the basics on reflection of light. So its what I expect from him elsewhere — sloppy thinking.


            1. You are a sleuth in search of a reason, a lever by which you can dismiss the whole of his work. That is sloppy reasoning, in my view. Each piece of work, just like blog posts, stand or fall on their own.


          2. Oh, as to Staycer and Lennon, I watched quite a few videos of the two of them playing the same pieces of music. Studying the left hand technique of both, it is obvious to me they are two different guitar players. Staycer has a horribly primitive left hand technique compared to Lennon.


            1. I need to see the videos you watched to draw my own conclusion. Or do I need to be a guitar player to form a judgment? (I did play in high school, but gave it up by popular demand.)

              This is kinda funny … There is a huge body of evidence there, some of it admittedly weak, much of it good, some better, some compelling. Your first response was to pull up a hand comparison and say, based on that all alone, that they are two people. But that evidence was weak at best given the hand positions and possibility (if it was done by a professional debunker) that it was monkeyed with.

              Now you’re doing the same thing based on left hand technique.

              Some time you’re going to want to deal with the whole body of evidence. Or have no opinion. One or the other.

              I’ve had the same problem with Dr. Wood – a lot of evidence, and a lot of people who just want to look away or run to a (spook-run) “debunking” site.

              This vigilant citizen thing is work, requires ton of effort.


              1. I just pulled some youtube videos of each playing the same song. The way the hand positions are for the left hand are just totally different. The kicker was Norwegian Wood. Lennon uses his thumb in his chording in a very specific way. Staycer couldn’t use his thumb if his life depended on it. He holds his hand wrong to be able to use his thumb creatively. I’ve been playing guitar since I was a kid — and Norwegian Wood was one of the first songs I ever learned, when it first came out. I’m not that good of a player, but I try and study the musician’s technique when I play covers. So playing Norwegian Wood by way of Lennon or by way of Staycer is two completely different techniques. If I could find more songs that that the two of them are playing, I would do more analysis.


              2. Not convincing. Again, some time you’re going to want to deal with the whole body of evidence. Or have no opinion. One or the other. Just like with Dr. Wood, I cannot make people go there.


                1. Why deal with a whole body of evidence, particularly when I know the presenter s 1) a sloppy presenter of evidence, and 2) I find conclusory evidence to the opposite.

                  Remember, it’s just my opinion against Mathis’. In my opinion, Staycer and Lennon are two different guitar players. Nothing other than watching them play music would convince me otherwise. Why should it? All the rest is just deflection and subterfuge. The mark of a sleight-of-hand expert.


                2. You deal with a whole body of evidence because you are thorough and methodical. As it is you are looking for a linchpin, but I don’t think you’ve found it. Mathis dealt with guitar method too, you know, right? I’ve spotted phonies before, am actually pretty good at it … People might not agree, but I trust my judgment on Kailey, Talbot, Conner, Pogie, Polish Wolf, Jay Stevens, Matt Singer, Kurtz … Just a few, phonies, light weights. It’s not like I lack a brain in these matters.

                  Take Professor James Fetzer, for instance. I listened to hours of his programming, read two of his books. Only after long exposure did I decide he was a fraud. Dr. Judy Wood … Hours and hours studying her book, listening to her lectures, trying to spot fraud … There is none. She is genuine in my view but others write her off in several minutes because she challenges assumptions.

                  I understand where you are coming from, but it takes time and exposure, not a quick one and done. You’re much too quick to judge, and unwilling to examine the evidence. That speaks of an agenda, and I suspect I know what it’s is: You are bought in to EF!, have an emotional attachment, and for that reason decided Mathis is a fake.

                  He just wrote an unconvincing paper on Castro. Much other of his work has been less than convincing. But I am letting it all simmer because he nailed two unimportant items, Lennon and Jackson, and one huge item, Hawking. The Hawking matter is a portal to something very, very big though I do not know what it is. For this reason, I am staying tuned.


    1. I sure agree that it was risky, but am mostly convinced that it happened. It is not so much Mathis and his work, which usually leaves me to ask for more evidence, but the movie itself, which was the man on film, the sound, gestures, attitudes, stage presence … is either him or a hologram.

      There is a part of the movie where he is sitting at a table, our first real view of him, and he is surrounded by a light aura, indicating that his image was superimposed in the film, that he was not on that set. That has troubled me. I’ll do a screen grab today.


    2. Lennon

      Here is the image. The whole scene is oddly staged with light interference from both sunlight and bulbs. That has the effect of creating two sets, the one on the right having black lines around the man, the chair, as if superimposed, and a sloppy job at that.

      Don’t know what it means, but it does bug me.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s