Response to Miles Mathis

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.


Dr. Phil’s ear superimposed over Freddie Mercury’s

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.

head-shot-with-arrowOK, 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.

About Mark Tokarski

Just a man who likes to read, argue, and occasionally be surprised.
This entry was posted in Esoterica. Bookmark the permalink.

77 Responses to Response to Miles Mathis

  1. Your comments were insulting – after having been worked over by Miles, I was not in the mood for more. It’s all about t-t-t-timing. You obviously don’t know that our work has never been sanctioned by Miles, and we didn’t care and chose to avoid criticizing him as he catches it from all over. But to say we worshiped him is wrong. I feel his work has gone off the tracks and that he’s become unreadable. I hope he goes back to being the man who unraveled the Tate and JFK mysteries, and quits with the genealogy.


  2. Yeah I saw your bot-generated blog.

    Why are you reading Miles Mathis or POM if you don’t like either of us?


  3. pat361 says:

    After reading Miles paper on the Manson hoax and studying the photos, I had a theory that Sharon was not really pregnant.
    After all, why would a woman in an advanced stage of pregnancy, want to go on the run to another country? There would be no family members or friends around once the baby arrived. Even if Roman came, he would not be able to stay. She would be in unfamiliar surroundings without her loved ones. They would be at home pretending that she and the baby were dead.
    The birth of a baby is supposed to be one of the most joyous occasions in a woman’s life.
    This scenario sounds depressing, doesn’t it?
    Roman and her family would have to stay in Los Angeles to help out with the phony investigation and arrange a fake funeral, give interviews and then be on hand for the fake murder trials.
    I discovered another pregnancy photo on Google that looked obviously fake (I was very surprised that it was there, since it was so bad: Look at all of the strange shadowing around her abdomen.
    The fact that the coroner did not mention the baby in the autopsy report is very telling.
    He should have done 2 autopsies here. One on Sharon and one on the unborn baby to determine the exact cause of death. Did the stab wounds kill the baby or was it the lack of oxygen in the womb? None of this was determined.
    I also think that her marriage to Roman was a sham too. Sure, I think that they got on well enough, but he was screwing any woman he could get his hands on, including Michelle Phillips.
    Hardly the actions of a happily, married man and an excited father-to-be.
    I could go on, but I think I made the points that I thought were most important here.


    • Brandon says:

      I saw the same photo, and it looked suspicious to me as well.
      The belly button looks particularly unnatural.
      Tate had an “inny” belly button, which is easy to see in her numerous, scantily clad photos. The belly button in that photo protrudes a great deal.
      I know that being in the later stages of pregnancy can force the belly button out to a certain extent, and it is.possible that that is what’s happening here. Maybe there are other photos out there that would clarify this issue. When.i looked, most of her pregnancy photos seem to be from that same day/shoot.
      There are a handful of others, but her stomach is covered.


  4. Vexman says:

    I was literally electrified when I read the title of Mathis last piece. As I was going through, it was even more intense feeling, seeing you guys and your blog torn apart by somebody whom we mostly all respect as some kind of an abstract authority within Truther realm. My goodness, was this really the only possible way to tell you all what he thought was needed to be told? Obviously so. I’d still choose another way to communicate my disagreement with anybody, no matter how deeply we disagree or annoy each other. Some Mathis ideas are just outrageous and should be understood only as a game of words, speculations at their finest. Unfortunately (or luckily in some other cases), people have feelings and I believe it was not easy to read what Miles’ thinks of you, which is even worse since I know how much respect he got over here at PoM. It is true, that some of you occasionally made some comments about his conclusions, call them criticism if you will, but nobody could call that disinfo campaign, that’s just bollocks. Travelling on evidence and proof would mean that before accusing anybody of doing a disinfo campaign against you, that you are certain about it. Which would mean you took time and read every single word written, if necessary. Until then, you are making conclusions based on assumptions and that can be dangerous. If nothing else, you may loose all your friends, fellows and companions, which ultimately makes you a loner in this crazy world. Sometimes it seems as if Miles is headed there on purpose.

    Keep your heads up, guys. Nobody is perfect, we’ve all got plenty of room for improvement after all, Miles included.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. calgacus says:

    I sent an e-mail to Mathis and among a few other things I told him that I believe that people here are sincere. I discovered this website by reading daddieuhoh’s papers published by Mathis. It was interesting to discover that Tyrone was here since I read his JFKTV paper and I listened to his podcast. I don’t care that much about the celebrities and their facial alignment. But people here are eclectic and there are many posts that are interesting to me. Even if the facial techniques are 100% wrong , in my opinion this website still looks honest and strong. And like I said, people here already have an eclectic approach. I definitely put his website in my top 5.


    • Thanks, Calg – we are eclectic, I guess, in that I don’t know of any site that covers such a broad range of topics. Other than that, we’re just trying to get better, like everyone.


  6. tyronemccloskey says:

    Thanks Mark for responding to Miles- I’m glad Miles has taken the time to look us up-
    I told some of you this already but for the public record, I sent Miles a link to my Vermeer series over two years ago when it resided on my last personal blog- He thanked me for it but that was no indication he read it through- His tone here to my mind implies that he was only aware of it recently, but that’s a nit- What I just wanted to say is that my series is not part of any smear campaign against realist art- I have no more interest in modern art, especially abstract art, than Miles does- What I wanted to explore was the puzzle of why Vermeer required two centuries of obscurity before coming to wide public attention- I also wanted to fill in some of the innumerable blanks about the guy’s life, something not speculated on save for the romantic notion of a great artist (prophet) unwelcome in his own time- That romantic notion is probably at the heart of Miles’ war with manipulated “reality”- He’s a romantic and my Vermeer series, for example, strains the romance off and tries to explain the man and his work as a real live artist, not a brooding genius- One glance at Miles’ art and you can see the romance dripping off the frames- That’s not a bad thing- I like Bouguereau, who is as shmaltzy as can be- But Bouguereau’s technique is beyond reproach and that’s not nothing in this painter’s mind-
    Hockney is a lousy artist, at least on canvas (I’m not familiar with his mixed media work) but his theories are intriguing- As a sometimes hyper-realist artist, I have no problem with Vermeer or Caravaggio “cheating” as many civilians would call a camera obscura derived work- I use any trick I can master to delight the eye of a potential buyer- If that buyer needs me to brood and assume I’m a genius, I’m not going to burst his bubble- But that hits Miles’ bullseye again- He reveals all the “cheating” going on in this world where he, I assume from his papers, would want everything hand/eye coordinated- That’s as romantic as it gets-

    Liked by 2 people

  7. steve kelly says:

    I am not seeing why any of this matters all that much. Miles has his dogmatic approach, which is fine. Not sure why he cares about POM, or any other website for that matter. Sounds like a personal problem.


  8. daddieuhoh says:

    Mark, this is a forceful and measured response. I, too, would like to hear a more substantive critique, from Miles or anyone else. I guess I need someone to sit me down and “explain like I’m 5” about what’s wrong with the method. What I’d really like is an example of the method showing somebody is a twin who I know for a fact isn’t a twin. A false positive, if you will. Anyone want to volunteer for a photo shoot?

    Like you, Miles’s work has been a revelation for me. It has opened my eyes to so much, both in conspiracy and physics. I have learned a great deal from him feel no small amount of gratitude and admiration. I don’t begrudge him his suspicions about me. It’s an occupational hazard.

    I find it interesting that his readers are telling him PoM is engaged in some kind of ‘discredit by association’ (DBA) disinfo campaign and that I am a spook running a con. I also assume that they tipped him off to my Jerusalem truck post. (“Psssst, Miles, your guy is over there saying that the obvious hoax wasn’t obviously a hoax. What a maroon!”) Well I’m glad he has better reading comprehension skills than whichever reader(s) put that bug in his ear. It would not surprise me if the readers bad-mouthing me may themselves be spooks, engaged in typical divide-and-conquer strategy.

    I will say that after he published my research on Gandhi and Dreyfus, I got e-mails from a handful of his readers. They were all very kind and supportive. I got no negative feedback. If his readers or anyone else reading this thinks I’m disinfo or a spook or whatever, they should confront me directly ( instead of whispering in his ear. Don’t go tattling to daddy, come talk to daddieuhoh.

    In fact, if we take a moment to drop our egos and really step back and try to view the big picture here, we can see that this whole kerfuffle is ultimately born of the well they have deliberately poisoned. (Sorry for the mixed metaphor cocktail…) What do I mean by that? Well, we know they try to control the opposition, and we know they’ve sent their minions out onto the world wide web to sow confusion and dissension. (“Fly, my pretties, fly!”) There is SO MUCH disinfo and misdirection out there that we are constantly suspicious, almost to the point of paranoia. The thing is, we’re right to be paranoid. Miles’s suspicion is not the product of some delusion. It’s the product of an environment that is thoroughly saturated with disinfo and misdirection, with DBA campaigns and false gurus everywhere you look. He understands that better than most. And the natural (and intended) result of that polluted environment is one in which we are led to spend an enormous amount of time and effort looking over our shoulders, assuming our comrades in arms have bad intentions, and pointing our fingers at each other instead of at the governors and their manufactured reality. The result is divide and conquer. Classic.

    So I take it as a good sign that Miles has not simply written me or PoM off as disinfo. It would have been easy to do. And the fact that you have responded to his indelicate criticism nobly, without writing him off, is also a good sign. It would have been easy to do. Small victories against the powers that be: they failed to divide us this time. Now let’s get back to pointing our fingers in the right direction.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Thank you, Daddieuhoh, for your contribution to this piece, keeping me civil and on track. I really appreciate it. To other readers, I sort of vented with a first draft, knowing it would not be published, and also knowing that Miles is not a bad or stupid or mean person, just a little tone deaf sometimes to human relations. It might go with the territory of a big IQ.

      Did he catch at all that your Jerusalem piece was nuanced? You didn’t say the event was real, but rather that it was so fake that we needed to watch out for a trap, that they might be luring us in to it with crappy Photoshopping in order to later hit us with real footage. That plus the dead girl made it a tough piece to write, as even though you are anonymous, you want to trust your colleagues. I did not get out of that anything to the effect that you thought the event might be real, just that we needed to be cautious in light of obvious sloppiness.


      • daddieuhoh says:

        All I can say is that he realized I wasn’t saying it wasn’t fake.


        • Marguerite says:

          I sincerely appreciate Mark taking the high road. And Daddieuhoh as well. Keeps me coming back! You could have severed all ties with Miles and been resentful and revengeful, but you didn’t do any of this. You see, I am a big admirer of Miles’ work and I found Piece of Mindful because of his paper. I don’t think you are running a disinfo campaign against him – I haven’t seen that – and he did keep the door open, as you have done also. I admire that. I will keep reading you guys, and Miles.


  9. It’s a bit disappointing to see Miles go off half cocked, but understandable as noted above. “What seek ye, a man in soft clothing?” Anyone willing to stay as far outside the box isn’t likely to be the most clubbable. Just goes with the territory. But I’m thankful for the work you guys do, and the outlet as well.


  10. _smr says:

    Miles is a man on a mission. A tightrope walker guided by his muses, nothing annoys him more than fanboys trying to cozy up to him. Understandable. It breaks his rhythm, his working trance. his free-jazz improvisations.

    Left alone, he knocks out out masterpiece after masterpiece that are bound to reverberate for decades to come, to inspire a whole new generation of historians, scientists, philosophers and yogis.

    Not that Miles is alone in this. You guys here at POM do fantastic work too, as do thousands of others truth seekers and matrix hackers. The Internet Intelligentsia has not only gained incredible momentum, but has become an undeniable force in the public discourse that is threatening the cozy Disney Land status quo the Elites have built for us and that forces them to adjust the algorithms of their industrial scale hoax-machinations.

    Their Matrix is now deconstructed in almost real-time by a multitude of independent researchers and there is no turning back.

    Exciting times. Let’s keep rolling!


  11. Vexman says:

    That’s a very interesting insight, I only wonder what kind of insight it is – are you speaking out of yourself or about Mathis. The latter would imply you know him much better than any of us here, which is very welcome since many of us here are wondering about his motives. In both cases it doesn’t matter actually. Since you are implying that it is understandable that we (or they or whoever in this case) are perceived as annoying for any reason, I find that selfish. Moreover, I find that nonsensical. I do not need anybody’s approval nor permission to align with his line of thoughts. If you said the sky is blue while you were the first to “discover” it and I would agree with you, would you hold it against me? Would you look down on me because I couldn’t have discovered it without your genius mind? That’s just not the way it goes with majority of the people. I can accept such behavior, but I can’t say I understand it, since it would imply that I can attach a reason to such behavior, which I can’t find in my mediocre mind.

    There are much simpler solutions if anyone wants to keep his/her rhythm intact. In example, you go into isolation or you put “do not disturb” sign on your door handle.

    And please don’t jump at me for what follows – I agree with all the rest you said. 😉 Let’s keep rolling, all of the above in this post is history.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Jack says:

    Well said, Mark. If technological photo analysis is so unreliable, why is it that governments are using it in facial recognition to spy in their citizens? I like both POM and Miles’ work, and I have to say that Miles’ work is not without flaws. Having done genealogy for 30 years I can say that there are some social history assumptions he has made that are incorrect and give critics grounds to dismiss the whole. Also, whilst his linking of the same surnames is interesting it is not conclusive, and the golden rule of genealogy is ‘never trust someone else’s work posted online – always check it yourself’.


    • daddieuhoh says:

      Since I know next to nothing about genealogy work, I’d be interested to hear more about the flaws you see. Mainly because I would like to try to avoid those pitfalls myself. I can see that just because some Jews have a certain last name, doesn’t mean that everyone with that last name is Jewish. Though I think it can still be used as one piece of evidence.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        Firstly about Trump’s mother from the Isle of Lewis; Miles thinks it suspect that his mother’s grandmother, a MacLeod, would marry a man called MacLeod. I’ve been to Lewis and even now it is a sparsely populated island with not many surnames to go round so no, not unlikely at all. It is also not impossible for Trump to have a great-grandparent born in 1833 but Miles says, “People tended to get married and have kids earlier back then, not later.” That is an assumption that is not always true. I have a g-g-grandfather born in 1814, my g-grandfather was born to his second wife in 1877. In times of widespread poverty it was common to marry in their late 20s, also men in the army or navy tended to marry later. Women also had a risk of death in childbirth and their widowers would often remarry and have a second lot of kids. This is the sort of information on social history that you do get to learn along the way and is necessary to make sense of some genealogical puzzles.

        In the excellent Ned Kelly guest article the author states, “all these people in the Kelly lines seem to have the same first names” and that this must be wrong. This is another assumption. It was very common in the 19th century for a couple to name their children after themselves, their parents and then their siblings. It’s very common to find two brothers with children with a matching set of names, often a nightmare to unravel!

        Finally, it is not conclusive to say that someone in the same area must be related to an aristocratic family; I’m thinking in particular of Stanleys in north Wales/Cheshire/the Wirral (quite a wide area) that crop up in Miles’ research a lot. (I’ve also seen a couple of Welsh surnames in his research, Rhys is one if I remember correctly, that are VERY common in Wales.) Without research into birth and marriage records a connection cannot be a certainty. Younger children and their descendants in aristocratic families will drop in the social scale over time, so you find a lot of people with the same surname who are only very distantly related. For example, any Swinburnes are descended from a powerful early medieval baronial family in the north, but my Swinburne great-grandma was the daughter of a stone mason, very working class with absolutely no ties to the elite!

        The appearance of the same names in Miles’ work is tantalising, but unfortunately it is only conjecture without the legwork needed to check genealogical records. As I mentioned, it is a golden rule in genealogy that you never take someone else’s research as gospel, particularly if posted online without sources, you should always double-check. That requires a lot of time, money and travelling around the country though. Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to illustrate clearly what I said in passing.


        • Thanks – I have no reason to know the things your write here unless you and people like you bring it to us. Very interesting post.


        • daddieuhoh says:

          Thanks, Jack. This is all very useful. One definitely cannot presume that the same last name definitively indicates a family relationship. I do find it interesting that he finds so many of the same names involved in these hoaxes (or related to the people involved), though.


        • Kmatt says:

          Two things that bother me from Mathis’ genealogy is he makes broad assumptions as you say that can easily be foiled by reading history. For example, I’ve noticed that royalty would name their legitimate children the same name(s) as illegitimate children. Henry II had two living children named Geoffrey if I recall correctly. So it might not be quite so uncommon to have two children with the same first name among the “elite.” Secondly, being from the Southern US it’s commonly stated that during slavery, the slaves would take the same last as the master or even a last name indicative of their work, i.e. Cotton. Then when finally freed, slaves were forced to take a last name, so they would simply choose one. Therefore, having the same last name historically doesn’t always evidence any sort of genetic kinship.


          • Jack says:

            Another point about names is that in the past you could go by any alias that you liked and could get away with it. It’s only in very recent times that you need a wad of documentation for everything – I remember opening a bank account in 1980 by just filling in a form, no ID required. In the past you would give your name, or other details taken for bureaucracy such as civil registration and census, and it would be taken on trust as being truthful.


  13. Cjd says:

    My two bits on Mathis . . .

    He’s an interesting read. I tend to think he makes some leaps of faith in his genealogy research and stretches a bit with his numerology markers (I prefer a tighter standard). I get that though- because it’s funny how the numbers can lead from one person or event to another that seemingly have no relation. But I’ve had my cringe moments when reading him – I forget exactly what article but he basically said Ireland was never conquered by Great Britain/England. Huh? That’s like basic history. Ireland had successive invasions from England and later Great Britain.

    He’s one guy out there trying to shine the light and he’s gonna make mistakes. Is he honest and straight up? I tend to think so but I’ve learned in this journey to not put all my faith into any particular basket. I constantly challenge my base assumptions and I don’t invest any pride of knowledge into what I currently believe. I detest the shill/troll accusations back and forth and avoid them like them plague. Where they flourish is generally a red flag for me.


  14. Cjd says:

    As for the twins stuff and photo analysis debate . . . I find the topic moot. I’ve looked at a few of them and my gut was pretty much negative to the whole thing. I don’t really find the topic all that intriguing or interesting. It’s the least pursued section of this blog for me. I don’t find the topic that compelling or interesting enough to even render an opinion on it one way or the other. It’s not in my wheelhouse.


  15. Ivanhoe says:

    Hi All,

    I’m new here – found you through Miles Mathis having a hissy fit – perhaps he wants people to see your site after all?

    I’ve read a few articles on here so far, and first impressions are good – insomuch that you permit and encourage some original hypothesis.

    Some comments seem to say you are unique in comparing photos of celebs etc. but I’ve been following an English blogger (I really do mean English – I’m Scottish) who has been studying faces and multiple actors, for a few years, who may be complimentary for your studies (especially for a “British” outlook).

    http ://

    Example above – link deliberately broke – good security device to avoid embedded shite – just copy and edit in search window


    • That looks to be a very good link, and thanks. There are not enough hours in the day!

      Miles did not throw us under a bus or anything, but wanted it to be known that he was not connected to this website or our work.


      • Ivanhoe says:

        Hi Mark,

        Thanks for the positive welcome.

        I was probably late to Dave McGowan (good Scottish name – as is Donald https :// – Donald where’s your trousers!)

        I’m in 2 minds regarding Miles V Dave, but will need to see how my research develops.

        Bill Hicks is Alex Jones (piece of shit) – accepted from afar – but don’t know much about BH to comment.


      • Marguerite says:

        I love it that you take the high road. Very impressive. Sincerely.


  16. Vick theChick says:

    “. . . .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 . . .”
    Huh? Your logic is sort of messy here. You claim to have “strong evidence” of something that even a beginner in logic would see is pretty tenuous. The idea that Miles secretly directed someone else to visit your website is somewhat grandiose. Why would he lie about something like that? Throughout this diatribe against Miles Mathis (much more detailed and accusative than his initial post about you and your website) you are jumping and swinging on some very long vines of so-called “proof” to arrive at your conclusions against him. Maybe Miles just doesn’t want to accidentally be associated with such sloppy logic as you commonly exhibit? He didn’t really attack you and your website he just clearly distanced himself from your website and most specifically your twins analysis based on split photograph computer programs. He explained why he finds such twins analysist to be suspect in a very clear and succinct manner. You never clearly address his arguments against it. Can you? Also, that you claim to have spent “hours” pouring over photos doesn’t necessarily prove anything at all. Unfortunately people tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak and when they find one website with flawed logic it spoils the whole batch of anyone remotely associated therewith (for them). Leave Miles alone! Or at least have the courtesy to properly address his assertions that you find so distasteful with proper logic and analysis.


    • I said Jack would not have stumbled on the website as he pooh-poohed all of the conspiracy work done by Miles, so why would he have read that post? He would have had to go to the website, which would only be by request, or Miles must have explained that post to him in detail. In either case it indicates that Miles knew about the post, ergo had visited the website. Why would Miles deny having visited our website? Petty pride, ego, whatever. We all have egos.

      This post was not a “diatribe against Miles,” and I suspect you haven’t read it or you would know that. It was a defense of our work, explaining our methods and means, which you seem not to be aware of.


    • daddieuhoh says:

      Miles’s critique of Mark’s work on twins was: “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 say that Mark never clearly addresses his arguments against the twins work, but in my opinion his argument is more assertion than substance. Mark has addressed the sizing issue on several occasion and the links under ‘our methodology’ explain how he deals with that. Miles does not address that nor attempt to explain why it is inadequate. As for the angles issue, Mark said in his post that he tries to choose pictures from the same angle. I’ll tell you my problem with these two arguments: if the mis-alignment Mark finds is only due mis-sizing and mismatched angles, then why do the differences seem to be so consistent? If what Miles says is a valid critique, then wouldn’t we expect to see the face chops to be sort of randomly mismatched? Instead what Mark finds is that two sets of images, each of which is internally consistent and aligns well. But the images do not line up across each set, and when you compare images between sets, he finds that they do not line up in the same way — the differences between them are consistent.

      As for the claim about “Jack,” I don’t really care and I don’t think it’s relevant to any pertinent issues. But it is a logical deduction arrived at by process of elimination. Jack isn’t a conspiracy guy (just the opposite), so it’s fair to conclude he would not have known about the site on his own. And yet he had clearly seen the blog based on his references to it. How could he have known? We don’t know. You think it’s tenuous to conclude that Miles told him about the site. Mark thinks it is an obvious and easy inference, because he cannot think of a more reasonable explanation. Can you you? If not, then we have a winner. Whether or not you want to call it ‘strong evidence’ is really just a matter of semantics. But the logic is not messy.


  17. Vick theChick says:

    Basically you are SUGGESTING, then, that Miles is DISHONEST. Stop pussy-footing around and just say it clearly. Then it will look more obviously spiteful and as stupid as it really is. I don’t think your long-winded attack on Miles is very well thought through. Just my opinion. I think there are many out there that would agree with me.


    • He’s not dishonest.


    • daddieuhoh says:

      Ms. theChick, please don’t put words in my mouth. I’m not suggesting, implying or insinuating in any way that Miles is or was dishonest. In fact I’m not the one suggesting anything. Mark wrote the post. You claimed that his logic was messy. I was simply trying to explain elementary logic to you. In my opinion the issue is irrelevant. As far as I can tell you are just trying to stoke the fires of dissent. News flash: we’ve all moved on.

      As for your assertion that this post was an attack on Miles, I suggest you read it more clearly. It was mostly a defense of Mark’s work, with two statements lauding Miles. The only thing that could be construed as an ‘attack’ is the brief statement you quoted in your original comment.


  18. Kevin Starr says:

    Hi Mark,

    Like Josh, I too have had the honor of being a guest writer on Miles’ site (as Kevin). I am here to unequivocally confirm that Miles Mathis is a man of great integrity. He is not motivated by money nor adoration. The only currencies that he values, in my experience, are truth and time. If you can provide him valuable information he will be kind and courteous, even friendly. If he senses you are wasting his time, you will be ignored. He has a zero tolerance policy in that regard. He has neither the time nor the inclination to coddle his readers. The previous comment by “smr” was spot-on:

    “Miles is a man on a mission. A tightrope walker guided by his muses, nothing annoys him more than fanboys trying to cozy up to him. Understandable. It breaks his rhythm, his working trance. his free-jazz improvisations.” “Left alone, he knocks out out masterpiece after masterpiece that are bound to reverberate for decades to come, to inspire a whole new generation of historians, scientists, philosophers and yogis.”

    I thought that Miles’ article about your site and your response (and the commenters) were balanced and respectful. A very refreshing and adult thing to see in this sometimes paranoid, back-biting truther movement. It’s obvious your were a bit stung by some of his remarks, which makes your restraint all the more admirable. Besides, anyone entering into a war of words with Mathis is basically committing literary Seppuku. I once wrote to Miles that if words were boxing gloves, he’d be the heavyweight champion of the world. (Although watching Josh go a few rounds with him would be entertaining indeed).


  19. Kevin Starr says:

    Yes, I see our dear Jen has found her way to the recycle bin. It’s great that you can admit when you are mistaken.

    Thanks for the compliment but I’m a hack compared to Miles and Josh. I am in the beginning stage of setting up my own site, and what you have created here is very inspiring. I am now officially a member/fan. Thanks for all your hard work.


    • daddieuhoh says:

      Kevin welcome to PoM. Thanks for the kind words, but you should give yourself more credit. Your work is great. The genealogy stuff is painstaking and difficult, and you seem to have a knack for it. I especially liked the most recent one on all the Hollywood dykes. What a weird world we live in. Can you believe it?

      BTW here is a useful site for genealogical connections I recently discovered that seems pretty reliable though should of course be checked: (For any given person, click on the ‘famous kin’ link for their connections and the ‘Family Tree (Ahnentafel)’ for their ancestry.)

      In the ‘About Me’ page he writes: “I had to know the truth and my research into these kinds of stories began to accumulate. One such claim by a noted genealogist was that accused murderess Lizzie Borden was the cousin of actress Elizabeth Montgomery who ironically portrayed Lizzie in the 1975 television movie The Legend of Lizzie Borden. This claim quickly went viral across the internet, but nowhere could I find just how they were related. After some of my own research into this, I determined that the claim was true.” Even more ironic knowing what we now know.

      FYI, I recently discovered that the Coffin surname is probably a push from Coffen, which is a Spanish variant of Cohen. I sent this link to Miles, maybe he forwarded you the information and if not, here you go:


  20. Kevin Starr says:

    Thanks Josh. That first site boggles the mind but the names ring true. Coffin/Coffen/Cohen sheds a whole new light on that article (missed opportunity).


  21. steve kelly says:

    Let’s do G. G and e, and you’ve got Geffen. Geffen produced John Lennon’s “Double Fantasy” (1980). It took Lennon’s fake death December, 1980, to make “Double Fantasy” the big money-maker it became eventually. Always messing with the “collective unconscious,” which is why these psyops are so hard to unravel. It’s like trying to interpret someone else’s dreams. “DreamWorks” much?

    Mix a little poetry, rhythm and rhyme and you’ve got a vehicle for mass mind control. I’ve always associated the 1964 “hit” by Shirley Ellis, The Name Game, with what’s today called Hip Hop/Rap.

    Ali’s pop rhyme persona was no accident, IMO.

    Anyway, onward Mark, through the fog. Maybe a name-change to “Bushwackers Anonymous.” Just kidding. Bonne chance.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Marguerite says:

    I think if I were attending a seminar in Taos NM and it didn’t start til 10 am and my habit was to rise at 5:00 am, I would be using those early morning hours to meditate, read, contemplate, enjoy a long luxurious cup of tea or coffee, go exploring on foot. I hope you enjoyed your time nonetheless with Miles – I was shocked to hear that it was such a small group! I would want to go just to sit in the same room and just enjoy the conversation. I think Miles is a rare person that comes around in a blue moon, and I think it’s great you went to his conference. Sorry you feel you don’t think you will ever do something like that again. Never say never. BTW, I have a brilliant friend and he’s quite advanced in years and he can be pretty darn prickly… he’s put so many people off over the years but he’s also got some good friends who have stuck by him. We are not all perfect as you say, and I think how you described Miles conference in his living room with 7 or so others sounds actually quite nice, relaxing, casual and appealing.


    • Yeah – I am regretting that I complained about all of that … my schedule is no one’s problem. I did make use of that morning time to visit some sites around there, and found a good coffee shop (even as I travel with my own espresso maker – yeah, I’m like that). I have no problem with Miles, though I won’t attempt to contact him. All that he is, he is, and I cannot take it lightly. He is, as you say, a rare person coming around once in a blue moon, although we often get several blue moons in any given year.


      • marguerite says:

        You went and experienced it, and there are no rules that we have to do this or that. You did it one time, and who knows, maybe Miles will reach out to you one day. Stranger things have happened in a world where we can see a few blue moons a year, ha ha. BTW, totally with you on the FE nonsense.


  23. marguerite says:

    Mark: I’m curious if you’ve read Allan Weisbecker’s open letters to Miles Mathis, part one and two. I know that AC’s critique and supposed outing of MM as a limited hangout and front for a committee provokes disagreement from some corners, but does AC make some good points? Or is it sour grapes? I ask myself, why someone of MM’s supposed brilliance and polymath status would conclude with all certainty that John-John’s salute to his dead father was simply shielding sun from his eyes. For those who have watched the footage of John-John saluting (I still call him that!), it is not hard to see that JFK Junior is absolutely doing a salute. It is so obvious. MM says he doesn’t get everything right, but his dismissal of the salute comes across as pure amateurish and flippant. What gives? Any why is it that such a supposed Renaissance man and prolific human being as MM, who obviously has a following, draws only seven people to a conference?


    • I don’t know who Alan Weisbecker is. I don’t care if John John was saluting or shielding, but if saluting he was doing it on instruction, as it was known by all in that party that Daddy was still alive. They are great with the photo ops. (See our work on the LBJ wearing–in ceremony, a photo op complete with a pasted in Jackie.) I fail to see the importance.

      Why did he draw only 7? Have you been around this country much? 90% of our YouTubers and bloggers are shills, and those who aren’t don’t have a forum as YouTube and Google manage to suppress them. I stumbled on MM via a YouTube that was later taken down. As much as we imagine the Internet to be an open forum, they are very good at censorship. It is only really effective when we don’t know it is there. Beyond that, $400 and a trip to Taos is not doable for most.

      MM is not a committee. I understand prolific output. It is a natural byproduct of an active mind.


      • bmseattle says:

        Miles specifically stated at his conference that he limited the attendees to eight. He said that one person backed out at the last minute. Allan claims that he was denied permission to attend, and it wouldn’t surprise me if Miles turned others away.
        My feeling is that Miles wants to keep the conference small and low-key, because of space limitations in his house, and also to provide a more intimate setting for group discussions. He didn’t seem that interested in “lecturing” to an audience. Having a roomful of 20 people would change the dynamic quite a bit.


    • Josh says:

      See my reply to Allan at fakeologist.

      Look, here’s the thing: if somebody makes a mistake about something in this business, we can either chalk it up to an honest mistake or deliberate misdirection. Allan has chosen to blame Miles’s errors on misdirection. He says that there is “no way” that someone with Miles’s artistic, visual acuity and expertise with photos would make the mistake about what Allan contends is a pasted-in microphone. Also the mistake about John John. Since there is “no way” he could have made these mistakes, he must be misleading on purpose.

      In my open letter, I pointed out some similar types of mistakes that Allan made in his post: The first regarding Miles’s Updated papers being the same as the earlier ones; and the second being about nobody on the Cluesforum thread responding to his allegations. There is another one I discovered later: he says there is “no way” Miles could not know that the picture with the microphone was lit by a camera flash. He says there are not strong lights there. But when you look at the film footage (not the pictures, but the video), you can see that there are most definitely strong lights there. There are flash bulbs, too, but they are hardly noticeable in the bright light. Somewhere I saw or read that the press was only given 5 minutes notice. So I don’t know how reasonable it is to have all of that set up so quickly. But even if it is reasonable, the funky shadow that Allan points to could have been case by one of those bright lights.

      So Allan is guilty of 3 very obvious mistakes, even though he prides himself on being totally certain about things when he posts. In fact he says he doesn’t post often because it takes him so long to be certain about something. He even says something to that effect in his open letter.

      And yet… three obvious mistakes. Three mistakes where it could easily be said that someone with Allan’s knowledge of computers, websites, and photography could never have made. So according to Allan’s own “logic” he himself must be lying.

      For the record, I don’t think he is. I think he made some mistakes. The problem is that Allan is judging Miles according to a much higher standard. It’s hypocritical. Just because Miles says he’s such an expert, etc., doesn’t mean we have to believe him. It also doesn’t mean he is infallible. Allan is basically saying: Miles is infallible, therefore these mistakes must be on purpose. Beautiful logic.

      The other problem I have with Allan’s argument is that he isn’t really dealing with the best evidence of Miles’s JFK paper. He finds two things he thinks are mistakes, and one thing he disagrees with (the motive) and therefore the whole thing is wrong. (Yes, in case it wasn’t clear from his posts, that is his conclusion: that the JFK assassination was real and the hoax argument fails because John John was actually saluting and the microphone in that picture was a paste up.) Well, I’m sorry, but that’s not how it works.

      Try to have a discussion with Allan, and he will insist that if you don’t respond to every point he makes, then you are being disingenuous. Well if that’s so then he should deal with all the evidence. But he doesn’t.

      I sent him Tyrone’s JFKTV and told him, “Look, here is someone else who came to a similar conclusion independently.” He didn’t reply to that, but he did answer me in e-mail that the Hidden Kings motive is wrong (and I agree with him about that), and so there is no motive for the hoax. And if there is no motive, then it obviously wasn’t a hoax. What do you folks think are alternative possible motives for the hoax?


      • bmseattle says:

        I was planning on contacting Allan as well, but decided against it. Frankly I’m tired of discussing the legitimacy of Miles, and I know that nothing I could tell Allan would change his mind. He stated that he was certain about him in his second letter. I know from experience that those “certain” about Miles, cannot be swayed.
        It seems to me that Allan, who claims to have wanted to believe in Miles, wants to not believe in him now.
        All I’ll say is, that based on Allan’s background and the way he presents himself in his writing, it doesn’t surprise me that Miles might consider him a potential disruption at his conference.


        • Josh says:

          Yeah, well he did write a book about himself titled “Can’t You Get Along with Anyone?” I am also not surprised.


          • bmseattle says:

            I just read your reply to him at fakeologist. I’m glad you pointed out the “paper update” issue. To make such an oversight means Allan is either not very bright, he is purposefully trying to mislead, or his ego is so bruised from Miles’ rejection, that he is being extremely careless in his analysis. My guess is either the second or third option.


      • I think an alternative motive for the hoax was simply to engage a shocked public with an overwhelming amount of stimuli … first the assassination, then the Beatles, Vietnam, Laurel Canyon, MLK, RFK (those two also served to kill hope), Manson, Watergate … in the end we are off balance, unable to think properly, and highly suggestible. They were moulding and shaping a new American consciousness, what we see now all about us, people unable to think properly or think for themselves, wholly dependent on authority sources to guide their thoughts. It was psychological warfare. Perhaps the assassination was part of Operation Chaos.

        I read and will source when I get back home that in 1969 fully 30% of the American public did not believe the moon landing was real. What percentage now would fail to be fooled? 5%?


        • Josh says:

          Thanks. I just re-read segment 5 of Tyrone’s JFKTV and realize there is plenty of discussion there of potential motive. In any case, I think talk of motive is speculative in the extreme. We can’t ever really know, and usually they have a range of different motives with any given deceit. They really are playing multidimensional chess. I prefer to talk about the empirical evidence for or against a given argument and draw my conclusions. Then we can speculate about motives. In my view the evidence for the hoax offered by Miles, Tyrone and Mark, are persuasive.


    • calgacus says:

      It is good to be suspicious since we have papers by the insiders telling us about the infiltration in the “conspiracy movements” (I should add that Cass Sunstein’s paper is probably misdirection since many movements were created from the beginning by the elites). I try to do my best not to put anybody on the pedestal,and this is an important message in many papers by Mathis himself.
      I skimmed the letters and I am not convinced . I don’t believe that I increased my suspicion regarding Mathis. The JFK points seem minor points. Me and people here don’t necessary agree about some conclusions (the government going underground during that time). People have their pet theories or demand answers to certain questions that they think are important. For example Mathis didn’t write about race realism, so he must be a shill. One man cannot cover everything since he cannot know everything.
      The letter also mention British expressions. This is not necessary big. Mathis probably reads/read older literature (I like ancient Greek and Roman literature). Mathis mentions John Ruskin many times (Victorian art critic). His triptych is related to the life of Ruskin (if I remember). If a British author has a great influence on you, it is safe to assume it will have an influence regarding your language or style of writing.
      People here already made valid points regarding the conference and other stuff. Nonetheless, people should ask questions. It is ok to ask questions or discuss about alternative researchers. But in the end we should look at the subject matter and not waste too much time on who is a shill or not. Take what is good and try to do better things yourself (like writing your articles etc).


  24. bmseattle says:

    Also, Miles has travelled in Great Britain and Europe, extensively. I believe he even lived there for a few years. He mentions it in the bio on his site. Allan mentioned his bio, so I’d assume he has read it. Maybe he didn’t get to the part about London, or he didn’t mention it because it didn’t fit into his “someone from Texas wouldn’t use British expressions” evidence.


  25. Marguerite says:

    Thank you , Mark, Josh, and bmseattle for further shining light on the subject. You astute comments help clear away cobwebs for me. Cheers!


  26. B. N West says:

    As of 4-17-17 Miles’s site is down and if you try to e mail him it is returned. ??


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s