A comment worth a second look

We have a couple of projects in the works and many on the shelf here, enough to get us well into next year. We are doing due diligence on one that, if the evidence holds up, will be of high importance, in my view and Straight’s. It will at the very least expose major Intel control of a police department in a small city.

In the meantime, I urge all interested readers to stay caught up on the comments. There is real forward movement there. I might surprise you with a twin or Zombie, and Straight is always working that stuff too. But the answers to the questions “Why Zombies?”, “Why twins?” and “How so many twins” are beginning to flesh out in the comments.

Below is one I liked from an unknown party, first time I’ve heard from him/her, or perhaps just a new name for the commenter – I really don’t care. It is the content that counts. S/he used the name Frito under The Steve Clark Blunder post, and was responding to my glib assumption that Anderson Cooper, or the Cooper twins, had been assigned low-level work as CNN news readers, unbecoming of Vanderbilts.

“While your dismissal of Cooper as a lowly CNN reporter is kind of funny, and I love the idea of him reading it and recognizing that he’s in a pretty low status job for a Vanderbilt, you underestimate the benefit to Intelligence of a CNN reporter. He’s the guy legitimizing all the fakery. He’s the guy who interviews relatives of victims after false flags. He’s the guy interviewing the politicos. His influence is not small. The Face of CNN is a relatively important Intelligence Asset position. I’d say he outranks most entertainers. Singers teaching girls to be slutty certainly have a powerful and pernicious influence. But the whole industry does that. Whereas CNN is the place where news stories are turned into video to get inside TV watchers heads. The singers influence the culture, Cooper shapes, translates, and communicates the Narrative, putting every news event, real or fake, into the desired context for Intelligence. All that said, I see your point. The ratings for cable news are abysmal and getting worse.”

36 thoughts on “A comment worth a second look

  1. Mark, I agree wholeheartedly. Your blog is a daily read for me, not just for your own postings, but also for the high quality of commenters you have drawn together.

    While we are commenting about comments … I myself noticed one a few weeks back, and it has stuck in my craw ever since. It gave a glimmer of confirmation for a hypothesis I was forming over the last year or so. It was this remark by nathan on August 30, 2016 at 3:05 am here: https://pieceofmindful.com/2016/08/28/we-did-it-our-way/#comments

    “oooooh…good catch on my langley-esque typo.”

    I had been observing odd typos in the posts or comments of suspicious characters on Truther websites. Having a background in editing, I have an eye for typos to begin with, and also a sense of what are normal errors for people to make in typing … and what are unusual kinds of typos.

    What I noticed is that (those I suspect as) trolls, shills, and disinfo agents have strange typos in their texts: I am not talking about the kinds of “I before E” mistakes many of us make. These odd typos might be the doubling of a letter that would not normally be doubled by mistake: or the transposition of one letter across two or more letters; or the mistyping of the first letter in a word by hitting the key next to it on the keyboard. (Hitting the adjacent key is not unusual, but not correcting it when it is the first letter of the word, the most prominent position, is unusual.)

    For example, in his previous comment, nathan had written that something was “too jard” when the sense intended was “too hard,” in a reply, Straight echoed the typo ironically. And nathan’s response was “oooooh…good catch on my langley-esque typo.”

    (If you want to glean a basketful of Langley-esque typos, take a stroll through the Flat Earth sites.)

    If you’re still with me, please notice two things. First, nathan references the very thing I suspected: that Langley folks use strategic typos as flags for one another, perhaps akin to the numerology clues that Straight has picked up on. I would love for nathan to tell us more about what he knows of Langley-esque typos.

    Second, if you do a Google search for “langley-esque typo,” you will find … nothing. In fact, you won’t even get a link to the Piece of Mind post and comments where nathan used the expression. There is no combination of “Langley” and “typo” that yields meaningful results. It’s as if any mention of this phenomenon has been scrubbed from Google’s search engines.

    That’s interesting to me, and I wonder if anyone knows more about this.


    1. I’ve been suspicious of him, but he is not obviously trying to undermine us. He’s a little more patient, and is often complimentary. Maybe he notices how I delete comments from obvious spooks. He’s been assigned to us, maybe is smart enough to try to work himself in as a friend. Maybe when he reads this, he’ll pass this website onto a colleague, and move on.

      It would not surprise me that they communicate with one another via unusual typos, though I had never thought of it before. Secret handshakes, numerology, Catcher in the Rye … All of that horseshit, and they are people just like us. Man don’t they like to play private eye.

      Thanks for the heads up.


    2. Hey Maarten,
      Glad you brought this up. I too have noticed the typos. While I may not have a background in editing like you, I can sense that the typos feel “off”. Like they are being done on purpose.

      Nathan has this friendly, dumb, drunk persona he is trying to put on that just doesn’t mesh with the type of people you would expect to have gotten this far on the path to the truth. He seems to be one of the only disinfo agents here that have partially “stuck” so he’s doing what he can to defend it.

      He reminds me of fbenario, a poster on the Clues Forum who is a shill. Hoi Polloi has called him out, but Shack keeps him around because he kisses his butt, which is Shack’s downfall. Fbenario’s modus operandi is the keep the posts very short, with very little insight, and be very prolific. He adds nothing, but is seen so often, he is somehow accepted.

      I think that is Nathan’s strategy. If you are a guy stumbling on the Timberlake Twins post from Reddit, you’re going to go into the comments to see what people are saying. If you see a group of smart commentators, you’re going to give it a 2nd chance. But if you see somebody like Nathan, who makes weird typos and avoids capitalization like the plague, it lowers the value of the entire discussion. You think “well, this stuff seems to attract some idiots”.

      There are a few other tells that gave Nathan away. I am going to keep those to myself because I know Langley takes notes and learns from their mistakes. I prefer they are in the dark, and remain self-conscious about their tells.


      1. At this point I decided that Nathan had trashed the comment thread, probably his objective, so that anyone new stopping by would think they are stepping into a juvenile food fight. He’s history. Thanks for the insight, guys. I’ve also got my eye on smartnsweet below. I’ll follow his lead, check out Olson/Bachmann, as it might be worth something, but if it is trash, misdirection, then he is gone too.


        1. And here’s an interesting development … This morning, if you do a Google search for ‘langley-esque typo,’ the August Piece of Mind page is one of the first results! That wasn’t the case last evening when I commented, or in any of the weeks since the original post.

          (I have been casting around for any information about strategic typos as a Spook signaling device; I ran that same Google search several times over several weeks and never got a result for Piece of Mind, or any meaningful result, for that matter. I realize belatedly that I should have been archiving screenshots of my search results so that you had evidence other than just my word for it.)

          What should we make of this?


          1. Put it in the evidence pot, let it percolate. Other things might pop up that confirm your suspicions. I agree wit Straight that this blog is too far advanced for a sloppy drunk to happen by on occasion and be instantly on top of everything.


  2. Listening to the news yesterday while stuck in traffic and the story of the teen from Hesperia CA who wanted to shoot his fellow students and teachers came up. Big to do about how he was caught before shooting the 33 people on his kill list. Hmm, I thought, that’s a peculiar number…and before I could ponder further, the reporter played a sound bite from San Bernardino spokesperson Cindy Bachman. Yeah, that Cindy Bachman, the one who is a dead ringer for Barbara Olson. Peculiar indeed.


  3. Well, thanks for deleting the posts of a first-time commenter. I guess mentioning the fact that the autocorrect function can be disabled is a major offense. Even though Nathan was probably a shill, attacking him with the autocorrect argument was wrong. Sorry, but in my book, the end does not justify the means. Otherwise your site will just become another big circlejerk. Oh well, you must dream of having a cult following like Simon Shack. Cherrs.


    1. If you are real, your timing was bad, dropping in just as a shill was doing his thread destruction bit. You backed the shill and attacked Maarten. Mind your manners, be polite, critique our work and call us out us when we are wrong, advance arguments, bring objective data, and you’ll be fine.


    2. I will repeat an earlier response to nathan, which got excised with his curious reactions. My comment above does NOT accuse nathan of using a “Langley-esque typo.” It merely observes that he was aware of this phenomenon. It is his awareness that caught my attention, more than the typo. Where did this awareness come from, given that no web search (before this morning) brings up any discussion of it anywhere? And yet nathan referenced the “langley-esque typo” as if it were a known thing.

      I am not sure what you mean by the “autocorrect argument.” No one spoke of autocorrect or the absence thereof until you did.


      1. Nathan mentioned that his typos were due to using a smartphone. I chimed in and said that autocorrect would fix those typos and would capitalize his letters, since he was allergic to using capitals. Merryweather showed up to defend Nathan.

        I think you are on to something, simply due to the reactions we saw by disinfo last night. Nathan went wild, I think partly due to frustration, partly to bait us, and partly to distract from what you noted. Merryweather then showed up to partially throw Nathan under the bus (while planting seeds of doubt), agree with me, and then call your evidence “flimsy” without any explanation as to why. Now he is attempting to shame us. And then whichever spooks are in charge of Google placement either panicked, or were sent a memo to fix the search.

        I’d say keep going. The more directions we get them uncomfortable with, the more we thin their resources.


        1. Wow. I missed a lot overnight. I am on Eastern time and I go to bed early. Mark had done the reset by the time I checked in this morning.

          Even the early reactions of nathan were enough to make me wonder: What’s the penalty at Langley for giving away a page from the playbook?

          Next question: How long will it take for a Google search of Langley + typo to bring someone to this even more revelatory page of Mark’s blog?

          Time for me to dig in and see if I can decode what the different typos and mis-punctuations might signify. But–ugh–that means intentionally fishing around in shill websites.

          Thank you, Mark, for this blog and the forum you provide.


  4. I’m a girl. And, no I’m not a shill. I’m trying to find the truth in this maze of info and disinfo in the media. I’ve enjoyed your work and Miles’, but I question everything. No answers, just questions.


    1. We have no way of knowing who you are behind your moniker, but that’s not important. Just be constructive, and if offering criticism, make it founded criticism. In dealing with other commenters, polite is important along with bold assertion, a nice balance.

      Regarding Bachman/Olsen, it is indeed intriguing. It is only two photos that I grabbed on the run, and I was surprised at the many similarities. It will take much more work, but to find a famous 9/11 Victim alive and well would be a very big deal, so I will put it on the docket, and thank you. Or, if you want, make it work elsewhere – it is your baby. But I will plan on working on it, and give you due credit if it gets posted. .



  5. I was up early enough to read Nathan’s farewell address- That bot knows how to make an exit-
    I got caught in traffic over at Fakeologist with a bot named Stephen a week or so ago- I had made the mistake of talking about some personal stuff and that seemed to be a cue for him to pounce- I would suggest that keeping as much personal stuff out of your comments would be a good idea if wanting to avoid a barrage of ad hominem attacks, but with the idea that you shouldn’t censor yourself if you don’t feel like it because no one should let a deranged algorithm make decisions for them-
    Meanwhile, has anyone here looked over the Barbra Olsen/Lady Booth Olsen comps? That suspicion been around for a long time- I don’t know if anyone has debunked it or not- 911 is not my favorite use of time-
    This was the easiest page to find- As always with Let’s Troll, proceed with caution-


    1. Tyrone,
      Do you think all these disinfo agents are just bots? No real people doing disinfo? This would mean AI is much more advanced than they admit publicly. Do you know of any tells?

      As for Barbra Olsen, I’ll try a couple comps, but I’m cautious. They could just want us to put all of our energy and attention back towards 9/11, rather than discovering new things. I notice many disinfo matchups are obscure like Brandon Lee/Christopher Greene, River Phoenix/Mark Dice, Jonathan Brandis/Adam Kokesh, DallasGoldBug/Random Israeli Soldier. None of them pan out either. So I’m cautious.


      1. For me “Bot” is accurate in a sense, even though we are dealing with people- I think the AI sifter alerts a human/”tool” to look into something and he reads from a template so as to have some semi-coherent response/attack- These tools are not bestselling authors, after all, so they need a playbook to put together their “thoughts”- There is no conviction in the meat and bone part of this process so that individual with a generic name is no more a person with a subjective take than the AI sifter- He’s just a resource, though it’s generous to say he’s human- Perhaps Tool is the better generic term- It implies man and machine working in tandem, though the machine is clearly the boss-


        1. I agree with the AI sifters. That’s how they find this site. It’s probably the true purpose of the Google spiders. That’s why we see new disinfo agents out of touch with POM’s work when topics like Titanic or OJ come up. A spider just crawled on my wall as I was typing this, so I’ll take that as a sign I’m on the right track.

          I still think the disinfo agents are people with egos. I really think we got to Nathan last night. Most of the venom was targeted at me and I was the one who has been the harshest with him. As for Stephen, I called him out pretty good on Fakeologist last week and I don’t think he’s been back since. If he’s not a bot, then I think he is an outsourced Indian agent. I know sports leagues like the NFL outsource the disinfo guys. I just don’t understand how AB (who I am very confident is not an agent) allows so many of those guys crawling around his site.


    2. I am leery of perfect strangers who stop by with bombshells. How do they come by such obscure details, and why would they come to a little-known website. My plate is full anyway, enough of Olsen.


  6. I’m always polite. Just got caught in yours and Nathan’s crossfire. I’m using a pseudonym when exploring “conspiracy questions” because I am afraid of the powers that be. Thank you for doing the comparison–it was just a question that bugged me. I’ll crawl back in my rabbit hole now and not bother anyone further. Gratefully, Smartnsweet1 aka Nervous Nellie (p.s. “Devil’s Mouth, I don’t think Barbara and Lady Booth match,)


    1. This is not my blog and so I probably shouldn’t be butting in here, but I will anyway because I think there is an important principle at stake. And that principle is simply that if we as legitimate researchers or questioners or “truth seekers” or whatever allow Intelligence to divide us against each other, then it’s a partial victory for them. And they are sneaky bastards with virtually unlimited resources so it’s as if the playing field is level.

      So smartnsweet1, before you crawl away never to be heard from again, consider the following: we know that Intelligence scours the internet and dominates it with shills. Assuming you are someone who is legitimately interested in and somewhat knowledgeable about ‘conspiracy questions,’ then that is something you should be well aware of. So the fact that Mark and others here (including me) view newcomers with caution and skepticism is only to be expected, and it is not something that should deter you if you are really interested in joining the conversation or contributing your thoughts occasionally. If you are for real, then this is something that I for one would very much welcome.

      Mark was not telling you to go away, nor was he accusing you of being rude; he was merely laying out his ground rules. Fair enough. He runs a tight ship and his blog is all the better for it. If it devolves into a circle jerk (which I have no reason or indication to believe it will), it’s still far better than having to wade through a swamp of shills or swat through a swarm of jtrig pests. The skepticism of new commenters is not only legitimate, but necessary. But there are a couple of drawbacks: it may lead to the banning of non-shills, or it may discourage real people from contributing. Both of these would be classic examples of the cointelpro ‘divide and conquer’ strategy working as intended.

      So far, I don’t think Mark has banned any non-shills. I might be wrong, but I’m less concerned about it. And anyway it’s not my ship. As for legit people being discouraged, well that’s on you: do you want to give up and crawl back in the rabbit hole because you were not welcomed with open arms right away? If yes, then so be it. Just keep in mind that’s what TPTB want you to do and adds another notch on their belt. If you think you have something worthwhile to contribute, then I think you should. The absolute worst thing that could happen is that you’ll be called and shill and banned from commenting on this blog. Unpleasant, but not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. And anyway you weren’t planning on commenting again anyway.

      If you wanted right now to alleviate our skepticism, you could, for example, tell us how you came to the connect Olsen with Bachman. You have to admit it’s a rather obscure comparison. (I agree with you BTW about Barbara and Lady Booth.) Or you could do some more facial splits and share it here and address the question about not appearing to have aged much. Maybe you don’t care enough or don’t want to, which is fine. But please don’t be intimidated into not contributing in the future when you feel that you have something worthwhile to add to the conversation.


      1. I have not “banned” anyone as it is too much work. For instance, if I ban “nathan,” anyone who uses that name in a comment gets sent to moderation, I just delete comments. If they come here and comment again, I have to decide again. I don’t like it, but spooks are so damned clever and calculating that it is unfortunately necessary.

        I have a hunch you guys (and Annette) are much like me in that I do not like or want to have power over other people. That seems to be an attribute of honest people, to accept others as they are and work with them.

        I have never made a negative comment about Mathis or anyone here on any forum (or in private, for that matter). If they are into divide and conquer, they might plant gossip remarks saying he said she said. None of that will ever come from me.


  7. Mark is an obnoxious, privileged boomer who likes to butt-in places he’s not welcome to preach that everything, all the time, is fake. if I were to offer similar unsubstantiated speculation like he so easily does to others, I’d say there is a good chance he was abused during his Catholic upbringing and therefore has alters. this latest iteration of Mark has been triggered to provide a limited hangout for others who suspect everything, all the time, is fake, rendering you impotently staring at screens and separated from a world that does, actually, exist.

    if you people believe Janis Joplin became Amy Goodman, you will literally believe anything. carry on.


  8. What did I say about reading from a playbook? I don’t know how long the “William Skink” post will stand, but he spotted a personal note about Mark, that being he was raised Catholic- So, open the book, let’s see..chapter three: How to flame a Catholic- Page 7: Child Molestation- Perfect- Always a tough stain to remove- Footnote: Altered personalities- Even better- Okay, A.W.E.S.O.M.-O 4000, do your stuff- (Whirring and clicking sounds) Great, one paragraph of utter swill- Oh, there is a new directive from central to punctuate and cap properly- A new signal scheme for us will be in place shortly- What? You don’t have that app installed yet- WTF? Okay, A.W.E.S.O.M.-O 4000, hit send anyway- Close enough for government work- (Whirring and clicking sounds overlaid with peals of derisive laughter)


    1. tyrone, please, I’ve been reading Mark’s blog since before this latest descent deeper into the bowels of chapel perilous. I wouldn’t be making this comment if he didn’t persist in coming to my blog and peddling his everything is fake schtick, which gets old. you guys can stare and pictures all you want, but don’t assume Mark isn’t enacting his own playbook. I’ve seen how he likes to roll, having private emails put out on his blog so he can score some points against those he has a grudge against.

      this won’t make much sense to the current audience, but I’m pretty certain the great monty hoax of the MT blogosphere was perpetrated by Mark. and why do you think he so adamantly draws a line at examining the occult? what are you scared of, Mark?


      1. Okay, let’s play- Two things: 1-What’s the great monty hoax and 2- The occult has always been an Intel circle jerk- In it’s modern form it goes back at least into the mid-19th century-It’s been a joint venture of the German/Anglo-alliance since then- “It Was a Dark and Stormy Night’s” own Bulwer-Lytton is a good place to start-
        PS- The A 4000 capitalizes names but not the beginnings of sentences- My name begins the first sentence but is not capitalized- Here in the bowels of “chapel perilous”, that is going to seem suspicious to some- Care to comment?


        1. 1-ask Mark, I don’t remember all the particulars.

          2-why limit yourself to the occult being an Intel circler jerk? way back in the day, if you knew the movements of the stars, and could predict eclipses, you had occult information that made you look like a magus. in the competition to probe the limits of man’s mental/physical capacity, who is to say whether or not dimensions have been breached and actual monsters are afoot?

          I’ve been recently going back down the Johnny Gosch/Franklin Credit Union rabbit hole. it leads to some very evil places and people. just saying the occult is an Intel circle jerk is dismissive and, for people like you who are trying to prove elaborate twins and celebrity reassignments, oddly narrow-minded.


          1. Why do you presume it’s an ‘either or’ dichotomy between hoaxes and the occult? Couldn’t people who worship the devil and abuse little children also perpetrate hoaxes?


          2. The post we just put up, JonBenet Ramsey, is coincidentally a perfect illustration of use of the occult and pedophilia to scare ordinary people. Neither were involved there, but the media has been pushing that theme now for twenty years. I was holding off till tomorrow morning but decided that t-t-t-timing is everything.


  9. William, I have commented on your blog a total of two times in the past weeks, and not about anything we do here, but rather about the politics that you swim in. The last time was simply to remind you that political blogs run by the parties are run by hacks who are dishonest and paid. Quite frankly, I got tired of politics, as it is all for distraction. They are actors. That is all.

    You, and your buddy JC, on the other hand, come here and don’t just comment, but engage in scurrilous attacks, offer no evidence, and ridicule my work. You’re mean and angry when you come here. If I did not know better, I might suspect you’re suffering cognitive dissonance. I mean look at you, tossing our hard work out the window here, never examining the evidence, just doing broad dismissals. That does not sound like a thoughtful man to me, and I know that you are thoughtful.

    This whole occult thing, I sense, is driving you inward and into despair … as it is intended to do. It is designed to scare civilians away from Intelligence activities. Tomorrow, we let loose a big one, occult [actually, occult and pedophilia] deeply involved. Don’t comment.

    So who is out of line? I suggest that when you come here, that you play a little nicer. I’ve seen a lot of your work, and have always thought you were capable and a good writer, though I am no judge of poetry. But I have not seen forward movement, that is, you have not developed any of your themes beyond what they were two or three years ago. You need to go deeper, as we have done, not knowing what lay in store, as we have. I can honestly say that blogging is fun again. And you ain’t seen nothing yet. Who knew how interesting this world really is?

    The Monty hoax was another Montana blogger – I used to truck in that community, and this was 2006 when he pulled a mean trick on me – I knew nothing of blogging or IP addresses or any of the technical stuff, I had no blog, didn’t even know how to do a link. He claimed that I had anonymously attacked him using the name “Monty” – a most diabolical stunt, caught me flat footed, as it took maybe two [three] years for me to understand that he was Monty, and how he did the trick. I even remember where I was, walking on a sidewalk in Boulder in 2009, when it finally dawned on me what the bastard had done. He would still pull that arrow out of his quiver today if he were still active, but he writes now only about football. (He thinks it is all above board!)


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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s