See update 2/15/2017 down below.
We were surprised recently by the Miles Mathis post about our website, and so stayed silent. I take this opportunity to address some of his remarks. He criticized three writers here. I’ll address only his remarks about me in addition to vigorously defending our work here at Piece of Mindful.
Before doing so, I want to make this clear: This man solved some of the big riddles of the twentieth century and exposed the inner workings of the Intelligence community, and I admire that. We have always supported him here. That he interprets support as “blackwashing” is unfortunate.
“Mark Tokarski came to my last conference, paying good money to do so, but I knew nothing about him before that. He didn’t do anything spooky while here, so I sort of ignored him. Only later did I find out about his website, and even then I lazily ignored it.”
That was a long week, Taos not a place I want to be ever again. The daily meetings started at 10 AM, and I get up at five, and so had to kill five hours each morning. The conference itself was low key, with seven attendees and situated in his living room. We were surrounded by some of his unsold paintings. He placed an easel with a large tablet on it at the front of the room, and used it for lectures.
Because I was alone and bored for the most part, I left a day early. I drove home by way of Highway 64. The sun was rising. That part was spectacular, having to stop and wait at one point as wild horses crossed the road. The landscapes are just as the license plates say … enchanted.
I won’t go back for another conference. I achieved my purpose, to find out if Mathis is a real human and not a computer bot or a committee. He lives alone in a nice house, owns cats, has no car or cell phone. And he is a real human being.
He didn’t ignore me – he might mean that after I left, he forgot about me. Nobody was ignored. I was cordial with him all week, as were the other six men. He too was pleasant and low key.
He and another participant (I’ll call him Jack) confronted me about my photo work, dismissing it with prejudice. That only told me I have to go it alone, without their support. We (Straight and I) had been getting great results that indicated we were on to something worthwhile. I had no intention of quitting.
The two had obviously discussed the work in private. Jack quoted from a post I had written on “The Math of Facial Alignment” (since removed and replaced by a better analysis.)
I only say that because Jack showed no interest in any political work throughout that week, did not know me, and so would not stumble on our blog. He was there only for science. But he did visit our blog and read that post. Miles must have told him about it, asked for his opinion. So contrary to his words, Miles knew about this website when I was there. That’s not proof, just strong evidence.
I took the criticism at face value and did not react. It simply meant no support from that quarter. Fine. We, all of us here at this website, have to believe in ourselves first. Doing so in the face of harsh criticism is not easy, but that is what I’ve done. The group we have assembled here speaks internally of our flaws and failings regularly, trying to get better at this. We’re a good group doing good work. Miles is making a mistake in dismissing us, but that is his business. He says he doesn’t do this work to make friends.
…[I] keep getting emails telling me POM is running a disinfo campaign against me, so I finally decided to check in over there. I still don’t know that they are running a campaign against me, though it is possible. That is not why I am writing this. I am posting this because I don’t agree with a lot of their conclusions, and figured I better say so in writing.
We are not, of course, running a disinfo campaign against him. We have been his supporters throughout. Even as all of us here have skepticism and disagreement with some of his work, we have not criticized him – he gets it from all sources, so why pile on? But his post removes any constraints. We are all of us here people of good will. We will now freely criticize his work with honesty, candor, and good manners.
The twins research is also troubling, because I consider the proof posted to be both very slender and completely unconvincing. The method used of superimposing photos on top of one another is slippery in the extreme. If two photos aren’t sized perfectly and shot from the same angle, they cannot be compared this way. In my opinion, it is a very bad way to do photo analysis regardless, and I told Mark that while he was here. You can’t rely on computer programs to do your work for you: you actually have to be able to spot differences “in the raw” as it were. If you can’t, you have no business standing as an authority.
I’m not sure that readers here are aware, but there are no trustworthy authority figures available for anything we do, no gurus. And that includes Miles. We cannot and do not rely on anyone. And neither should you. Just because he dismisses us with the wave of a hand, doesn’t mean you should. Before taking his word for it, take some time to study our methodology and our evidence.
Our work is our own, not derivative of any other website, not from some book or video. We set our own subjects, do our own research, and publish our results, welcoming substantive criticism and replication of the work. A lot of people don’t like our results. We don’t even have internal agreement on a good amount of it. I have a list of subjects to revisit now that my techniques are more refined and I am better in Photoshop. I will get to it. It haunts me.
What frustrates us is the kind of criticism we do get -“I don’t see it,” “That’s just wrong,” “I don’t agree with your findings…”. That is the nice stuff. The nasty stuff we delete. It is pointless.
Our work can be duplicated with ease and scrutinized closely. All of the photos are available for analysis to anyone. Our method and working assumptions are transparent and described in detail here, here and here. We ask anyone interested to obtain their own results, and bring it on. No one does. Instead, we get wave-of-the-hand put downs and dismissals. I will now add to that list of those type of pointless observations and empty criticisms …“In my opinion, it is a very bad way to do photo analysis.”
Did he sweat for hours over a computer looking at hundreds of photos, as we have? It would be impossible because his technology requires an eyeball analysis of all photos without any technological assistance. Maybe that works for him, but it also limits him. We have done thousands of photo comparisons, and it isn’t just the technology, but the eyes and brains behind it too. There is no algorithm. He cannot begin to match our output because there are not enough hours in the day. We have done far more research than him on this and obtained far more results, and we do so by using technology as a tool, not a crutch.
For example, Aniston or Sinatra may be twins, but until I do the analysis myself I won’t confirm it. The analysis at POM is bugged, and I don’t trust it. I looked closely at the proof there, and it didn’t prove anything to me, other than that Sinatra and Aniston probably aren’t twins. In other words, the analysis backfired, which is a big red flag. If the analysis backfired in my eyes, it may be backfiring in everyone else’s eyes, and that may be the desired outcome.
That is quite a reach, now saying we failed on purpose. First, we didn’t fail, but we also know that we “proved” nothing. We put up evidence that can be replicated using well-described techniques that others can use too. We have always invited others to duplicate our work and show us where we go wrong.
I did all the work on Aniston – I looked at hundreds of photos, chose thirty from the same angle, and then sized them and did comparisons. (I sought photos where the ears are visible. (The Aniston twins rarely show their ears for a good reason – they do not align. It is one way to spot them.) I did not look for anomalies – as I sorted through and compared each to another, they appeared on their own. I grouped and regrouped for internal consistency, and it boiled down to two groups, each lining up with each and not with the other group. If our results were simply due to camera angles or some such, then the face chops should be all over place, differing with each new angle. But they’re not. The consistency is telling us something.
Update, 2/15/2017: His words caused me concern, and so I revisited the Aniston work, and found him to be right. This has prompted a review of all of our work here, starting with twins, to ferret out bad work. I hate being wrong, but this has to be said.
Miles, by his own admission, did nothing other than look at the photos. That is his analysis and opinion, but not supported by evidence other than we need to trust his expertise. I’ll take our careful, transparent work over his opinion.
(By the way, I also did the same amount of work on Emma Stone, some grueling hours, and discovered that she is not a twin. I emailed the others and said this is so rare, should I write it up?)
While POM just superimposes photos (chops), letting that one manipulation stand as proof, I go into each photo and show you several specific things that don’t match. I then back up that visual analysis with extensive supporting analysis from the bios, genealogies, and histories.
There’s a couple of things wrong with that statement. First, the face chop is a technique, not a manipulation, and we never let a single chop stand as “proof.” We use chops as a tool to help pinpoint several specific differences, which in most cases can then be spotted with the naked eye. We have also never said that we offer up proof; only evidence. Make that distinction. I rarely use the word “proof.” Life seldom offers opportunity for proof of anything. Miles cannot “prove” that Custer faked his death or that Lindbergh’s flight to Paris was a hoax. He has not proven anything to date, only offered evidence for his readers to judge. That’s all we do.
But beyond that, we do more than photo analysis – it’s not like we are looking at mannequins. When we deal with movie stars and rock stars, yes, we don’t much care where they are from – they are just not that interesting. It is the twin facet that catches our eye, wanting to understand what is up with that. Because these are twins, or replicas, or they have gotten so good with makeup that they are fooling us with body doubles (as our writer Maarten has asserted), we know that something is up.
With our zombies, we have to look at timelines. Freddie Mercury faked his death in 1991, Dr. Phil appeared in 1998, for instance. We have to know if Dr. Phil and Freddie ever existed in different places other than the paragraphs of Wikipedia. We have ruled many potential zombies out due to timelines. Photos of Dr. Phil as a youth, for instance, were fakes. Those of Freddie as a boy were real. We did our research.
One step further … our analysis has shown that Jim Morrison, John Denver, Janis Joplin, possibly Taylor Swift and John Lennon are/were not even members of their “official ” families. They were inserted into photos by means of darkroom cut and paste, or Photoshop with Swift. They would not do that if they had real photos. In Lennon’s case, his real family was substituted with a fictional one. (John’s mother “Julia Lennon” is, as I view it, a literary creation used to misdirect us from his real family. His father, Alfred Lennon, like Mike McGear, was probably a hired actor.) What good is genealogy with unrelated parties? Our findings are important, as it indicates we have uncovered a small part of something very big – not just that the Beatles have manufactured identities, but possibly that everyone in news, music and show business does.
This kind of work thrills me, and I believe it important.
Miles is dismissive of the technology we currently use for the same reason he says that photography cannot be art – anyone can take a picture. We are short-cutters. We are using technology to bypass eyes-only work, and he doesn’t like it. He seems to be saying he has the talent for this work, and we don’t. I tend to disagree.
Bad research pollutes good research, and that is what my readers are saying is going on at POM. They are calling POM another WellAware or DallasGoldBug, and they may be right.
I really have to step in at this point as an editor and insert the word “I” for “my readers.” He is using them as a frontispiece, allowing them to masquerade as the reason for his dismissal of our work. He does not like what we do, and the reasons are his own, and we accept his criticism and move forward. But give it to us straight, please.
We are fully aware of Dallas Goldbug, and know what he does and why he does it. We have looked at much of his work and it is sloppy and easily discredited. That is the point of Dallas Goldbug – to discredit anyone, us for instance, who do good and careful work. He is creating noise to drown out the very things that we are discovering, twins, replicas, zombies. Goldbug is a psyop, and a good one . But he will not defeat us.
You will say I have written off DallasGoldBug as a probable agent based on his flawed analysis, so why not POM? Well, it is because I think there is a possibility POM’s analysis is an honest mistake, based on trust of computers and a misunderstanding of visuals. I don’t think there is a possibility DGB’s analysis is an honest mistake. In my eyes, POM’s analysis is weird, but it isn’t as weird as DGB’s. I could tell DGB’s analysis was fake in about 10 seconds. I can tell POM’s analysis is flawed that fast, but not that it is fake. There is a difference.
We don’t misunderstand visuals. We’re actually pretty good with them, much better over time and with so many hundreds of hours of sweat equity. I have more and more been working with visuals and less on twins, and taking time to go into more depth. Hugo Chavez was a large project, John Denver even more so, and all without photo analysis – that is, all photos used were real. On my docket are My Lai and Ruby Ridge, as something about those events does not sit well. I still intend to do more and continue to get better at it, but twins are so common to us now that we’re not so excited by discovery as we once were. I only did Aniston because it was a lingering project I needed to finish. We’ve exposed enough now to have made our point – Hollywood and the music business are rife with twins. (Miles says the same thing about “Jews.” I think them being twins is far more interesting than possibly being Jewish.)
We have spotted visuals now that indicate that Sharon Tate was not pregnant in 1969. We have some photos obtained on our own, but also two from Miles’ Sharon Tate paper. He missed the clues. That will appear in the near future. (We’re pretty good at this stuff.)
By “trust of computers” Miles is saying that computers don’t render photography in a trustworthy state for analysis. He’s wrong about that. Everything he does, every bit of photo analysis, accepts the image before him, even if fake, as a faithful rendering of the fake. We trust computers in the same way he does. We are fully aware of angular distortion, differing lenses, airbrushing, flipping, body doubling, make up and Photoshop manipulations (darkroom cut-and-paste before there was a Photoshop), and yet find that the photos we use are enough in agreement with each other that they are good evidence to support our conclusions. If you don’t agree with that, don’t tell us. Show us.
Oh, one more thing … using Freddie/Dr. Phil again as an example: We are working towards better means of identification. In addition to the face chops and profile overlays in Photoshop on those two (actually, Freddie/Phil a set of twins) we noticed that the ears matched. That is extremely rare. Studying ears is on the horizon here. This would involve an overlay of ears lowering opacity of the top layer in Photoshop so we can see the other behind it and compare all the angles and dimensions and folds. Sizing is an issue, so we have to use (gasp) face chops to indicate the possibility of two people being the same person. Otherwise, it is arbitrary and useless. A photo overlay of Dr. Phil’s ear perfectly matched Freddie’s.* All of this followed face chops. They work.
OK, one more one more thing. On page six of his Camelot paper on the fake assassination of President Kennedy, Miles analyzes a morgue shot of the man and concludes based on shaved eyebrow and fitness of the body that it is not him. “Not only is that guy not Kennedy, he isn’t even dead.” He’s right only in part. With our technology I was able to show that while the face is indeed JFK, the ear is misplaced. Due to that finding, we were then easily able to see that JFK’s face had been superimposed on another body in a dark room by cut and paste. Obviously with the hoax of the century they had to be good at it, but we spotted it. With our eyes we could see nothing more than we were intended to see, but add technology, and the mystery unraveled. I don’t use the word often, but I regarded as maybe … “proof?” that JFK faked his death?
My respect for his work remains. His past work is immensely important. His current work might be as well, but I cannot say that with certainty as I have so much trouble reading and following the genealogical webs he weaves.
Good day, Miles. I met you, I like you. You are one of a kind. And, you’re human. Your piece about us could have been more charitable towards a group of people who have supported you probably more than any other website. It is unfortunate that you demeaned us. But do continue to read our blog, as we have much, much more in store. We’re pretty good at this stuff.
*We later learned that Dr. Phil has a son who is a rock star, and who sings in falsetto.