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.

264 thoughts on “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. 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.


    1. 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. 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 3 people

  5. 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.


    1. 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. 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 3 people

  7. 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. 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

    1. 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.


        1. 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. 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!


    1. SMR, After reading this post I wanted to reply myself but you said it perfectly. These are VERY exciting times. Let’s keep rolling with big smiles on our faces! Because of Miles, Mark and so many others the curtain is pulled back and we see the wizard is a little, scared weasel!


  11. 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. 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’.


    1. 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

      1. 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.


        1. 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.


        2. 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.


          1. 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.


        3. Funnily enough the Daily Mail this week on its website had a story about the McLeods and showed their coat of arms, quartered with the Isle of Man fylfot flag in two quadrants and a fastness on a blue background on the other two. The fylfots are also on the coat of arms for Sir John Stanley I, KG (c. 1350–1414) who was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and titular King of Mann, the first of that name. The Stanley family later became the Earls of Derby and remained prominent in English history into modern times.


  13. 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.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. 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. 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


    1. 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.


      1. 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.


  16. “. . . .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.


    1. 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.


    2. 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. 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.


    1. 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. 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. 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.


    1. 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. 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).


    1. I have a Jewish friend who told me that when the name Cohen is westernised, it is the protocol to choose a name that begins with C or K and ends with N. My friend’s surname is in the format K**n.


  21. 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

    1. I heard the Beatle’s 1969 ‘Ballad of John and Yoko’ with the chorus ‘They’re gonna crucify me.’ Couldn’t help thinking of it as predictive programming.


  22. 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.


    1. 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.


      1. 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. 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?


    1. 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.


      1. 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.


    2. 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?


      1. Josh,
        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.


          1. 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.


      2. 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%?


        1. 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.


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


    1. According to WHOIS, he has a weird hosting company in UK or somewhere else in Europe. My guess is that the hosting company went down and took his email with it (that is hosted under his domain name).


      1. This could be. Or maybe Miles took himself off everything for a while. Or…I see increased censorship across the board. I enjoy Miles’s updates and hope he remains well.


  26. I was looking forward to this year conference. Never been to one. Wonder why it never materialized. MT, you paid good money to be there last year and it’s your right if you do not want to share some nuggets. I do not know if you ever wrote a post in your blog about the conference and what was it about… but I was wondering what was the most remarkable thing you learned at the conference. You got bored and left a day earlier. I find that amazing but again, fair enough. Would you care to share something about the conference? We might never get a chance to attend ever again. He might grow more isolated, again, fair enough. In hindsight, would you say even the visceral paper he wrote about POM was “good” publicity?


    1. To say I “got bored” is an overstatement. I left a day early because I was confined to quarters at night, that is, no one else in the conference was socializing at day’s end. It could be that I needed to take the initiative there, but hours on end in a motel room is not my thing. I don’t go to bars (alone, at least) and on the last morning, up at 5AM as I usually am, and five hours to go before the conference even started, I realized I could be home by that time. As it turned out, our son paid a surprise visit, and I would not have seen him had I stayed that day, but that was not my motivation.

      I was most surprised, I guess, by MM, how genuine he is in person, even as it is obvious he does not necessarily relish company of others. (“Conference starts at 10:00 AM. Don’t come early.”) His smile is warm, his demeanor calm and non-agitated. He loves his cats, and regularly runs litters of kittens through his house. Given what I knew about his intellect, these were added bonuses.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thru email exchange, to me at least, he comes across that way too: polite, self-effacing and egregious… I get the impression that he brings out his alter ego when writing his papers most of the time. To a neophyte, being called stupid can be repulsive, but we know what he means. You’ve got to read between the lines sometimes… New paragraph. Disclaimer: I’m not questioning MM’s integrity in any way. I know for many this can even be dismissed and overlooked as a “Stupid Question”… perhaps, but I got to let it out: How do you know a person you’ve never seen/met is actually who is in front of you? Just by the pictures? Is this the authentic person, a surrogate or an actor? I mean many people believed they had Hitler shaking his hand and it was an actor (or actors) all along… I am not saying you met an actor, but how did YOU know? How do you know a singer is the real deal and not just a pretty face lip-synching? Just being curious to the extreme here. A very sophisticated stretch of the imagination. Did you ask him about his writings to check if he really wrote them? How did the Tate paper started in his mind? What was the key for you to confirm his ID’ty when at the conference?


        1. Good observations. Of course I can be fooled, but I know the person I met is the person whose younger photo is on his web page. That is self-confirming, I know. Two things that suggest to me he is genuine:

          One, he brings people out of rabbit holes, while most disinformation agents work to do the opposite, Fetzer, for instance, and Wood. His JFK work poured cement in the opening of a dozen such holes. The effect of this work is emancipation, freeing the human spirit to see the essential goodness of people, even if we are dumb. Most disinfo agents want to keep people’s nose to the grindstone, never looking up, never seeing the positive side of our existence. I regard his work as liberating.

          Second, his attack on POM, while hurtful, was genuine, as I was involved on a self-deluding side path. The net result was to pull me back into more rigorous research and make me more cautious of self-fulfilling, or inductive reasoning. He did it, of course, without kindness, as there is in him that element of detachment from normal human emotional involvement, manifest in his love of kittens. But the end result was positive. He is not my friend, not capable of such investment, but he did the right thing for the right reasons.

          I don’t think a disinfo agent would do any of that. But I could also merely have been fooled on a higher level. Such is life.


          1. Thanks for the feedback. My question was not suspicion, just curiosity, as I tried to make it clear when posting it. I was not trying to raise any controversy, but it has led to many interesting responses down the river. Great finishing sentence, BTW. “Such is life”. Very stoic-ish. May I recommend it as the last sentence of your upcoming novel… And too bad the POM’s 1st Annual Conference was dismissed with a wave of the hand…Would have been such an event.


        2. I can’t speak for Mark, but I will say that I have heard this issue addressed by another attendee at that conference who also comments here occasionally. He said that he questioned Miles at length about many of the things he had written in the past, including reviews of movies that he had written on Amazon back in the aughts. Miles was apparently familiar with all of that and able to respond in a way that was indistinguishable from someone who had actually written it.

          On top of that, I assume you know nothing of his physics work. If you did, you would have to realize that nobody would be able to hold court at a conference discussing both his physics work and his historical research with such authority and familiarity, unless they had actually done that work. If you are suspecting Miles of foul play, you are dreaming up the wrong scenario. Better luck next time.

          Also, I have asked Miles about future conferences. I got the sense there would be no more, but not for any of the reasons that have been suggested here. He may be open to personal visits on a case-by-case basis, I don’t know.


        3. As a former contributor to Miles site, I can confirm that he is real. Firstly, because I know that I am real and he posted my work, even enhancing it, with no censorship, he’s just about truth. Secondly, I’m a “former” contributor. I’ll let you figure that one out for yourself.


          1. Let’s just say, Miles does not “suffer fools gladly.” An agent would have strung me along. Miles sent me packing.

            My best advice for you 47Ronin is to realize that the only person who’s not a “limited hangout” is you. No individual can fulfill ALL of your “truther” needs. Miles comes the closest (for me). If you have doubts about his work, re-research it yourself, then call him on it. On second thought, I take that back. Don’t want to be responsible for “leading a lamb to the slaughter.”

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Kevin, good to read comments back from you. You said you were returning to obscurity and I regretted that. Your comments are always useful and I do welcome them. We need your input as much as the other ones. Thanks for the advice and no worries, no lamb here.

            Liked by 1 person

        4. Ronin,
          The Miles I met in Taos could reference any of his writings that I cared to bring up, and discuss… even quite obscure ones.
          For instance, if you look back years in his updates, he has more light-hearted papers (top all time t.v. shows, songs, movies, etc.). Based on one of his television recommendations (from a 2009 paper of his), my girlfriend and I had been binge watching “Felicity” on Amazon.
          I was scrolling through the customer comments section for season 4 of the show, and lo and behold, there was a review from a “Miles Mathis!”
          Here’s a link, if you wish to confirm.

          Anyway, I mentioned this to Miles during the conference, but I accidentely said it was on Netflix. He looked confused, and then corrected me that it was on Amazon.
          The review is from December, 2005.
          So, if the Miles Mathis in Taos is an “actor,” he has been playing the part for over a decade, and he remembers obscure papers (and reviews) that he wrote, many years ago.

          Another bit of info.
          The last day of the conference, everyone had left except me, and my girlfriend and I were chatting casually with Miles, and wandering around his house, asking questions about his artwork and books. (all the artwork you see on his website is indeed in the house in Taos)
          We asked Miles about the Mabel Dodge Luhan house, because my girlfriend was curious about whether it was worth visiting or not.
          Miles talked a bit about his opinions about Luhan (not great), and the local art scene in Taos… and we decided not to visit the museum.
          About a week after the conference had ended, Miles posted his paper on Luhan!
          He had not mentioned that he was actively writing a paper when we spoke about it, so I can only conclude that he decided to write it after we discussed the topic with him.
          Is that “proof” that the guy in Taos that I met actually wrote the paper?
          But you must admit, it is not a standard “conspiracy” topic, and it strains belief that some committee in Langley would produce such a paper, simply because my girlfriend and I brought up Luhan in private conversation with Miles.
          Anyway, sorry for the long response, but those were two of the most dramatic examples that convinced me that Miles is legit.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. BMSEATTLE Great info. That review is priceless. What’s funny is that it reminded me that I used to review things on Amazon too. I went back and was amazed to find that I had penned a (severe and heartfelt) review expressing my disappointment with the final season of Buffy, the Vampire Slayer at around the same time. Who would have ever thought that 2005 would now seem like innocent times?


          2. Good stuff, bmseattle, good stuff. Thanks. I took the link as well, and there it is, typical Miles’ rant. For the record, Miles knows who I am, not by this nick of course. I always send him congrats on his B’day.


          3. There are 19 other movie reviews by Miles at Amazon. It’s like a time machine treasure trove. I can’t wait to read them, but I can finally tell him he’s wrong about something. There’s no way “Manhattan” is Woody Allen’s best movie. It is “Love and Death”.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Kevin,
            Are you forgetting your own advice about lambs to the slaughter?
            And, at the risk of completely losing all credibility, I’ll admit my favorite Woody Allen movie is “Sleeper.”


          5. Ha-ha. I’m already in the doghouse so I can bark if I want to. Sleeper!?! Maybe old Chuckie’s right about you. JK


      2. May I respectfully ask what were the dates (starting/ending) of this 4th Annual Conference last year? Hours were from 10am to 5pm? 1 hr lunch? Catering? Delivery? No lunch?


        1. It was the week of August 8th, through that Friday.
          10am to around 5pm every day. we all (the attendees and Miles) went out for lunch together every day at noon.
          I was in Taos with my girlfriend, so didn’t socialize with group in the evenings, but I believe Miles went out for dinner and/or a drink with a couple people at one point.


          1. Thanks, Brandon. Do you recall any of the other (5) conference participants as to have “jewish look”. Did anyone looked “jewish” at the conference?


          2. Working in a corporate and very structured environment all my life, I celebrate you took lunch after just 2 hrs after starting the meeting. Very italian 😉 imo… All my questions are out of curiosity, thanks for answering.


  27. The new lay-out is nice, I like the color (obviously) and the font, but a pity the “recent posts” has been pushed down in the mobile version.

    I think what is important is that Mark confirmed that “Mysterious Miles Mathis” (MMM, 13-13-13) is a real person. No matter the personal disagreements, that is important to take away from it.

    When he announced his conference, I thought of joining, but financial and travel options impeded it.


  28. Very interesting, thanks. BTW, do you all guys know each other? All POM’s starting lineup? A POm’s 1st annual conference would be a hit. I guess the only problem would be the logistics of the event, but I think most people here (at least the ones living in the continental U.S.) would be interested in attending. Crazy idea, but hey, that’s what we’re here for.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I would join. It is a great idea, not crazy at all.

      I’ve met 100+ people from forums online (among them my best friend), and only 2 truth seekers, which was great to do. The US is possible for me, something like Japan would be too expensive…


  29. That would be a large undertaking with no guarantee of success … a logistical nightmare given work schedules and costs of travel. On top of that, we’d have to have a program in place! I would hold out for MM if I were you.

    It could be that part of the reason for no 2017 conferences was that the 2016 attendees put a lot of work into devising and filming a way to show that pi=4, only to have Miles promote a Dutch guy who did the same thing without any thanks (public anyway) to the 2016 guys. I have no way of knowing as I lost contact with all of them, but there might have been some hurt feelings.


  30. If logistics are too difficult to organize, why not pay a visit to South America? You can see with your own eyes that Narcos is a lie… 😉


    1. “Accounts of Escobar’s continued criminal activities while in prison began to surface in the media, which prompted the government to attempt to move him to a more conventional jail on 22 July 1992. Escobar’s influence allowed him to discover the plan in advance and make a well-timed escape, spending the rest of his life evading the police.[31][32]”

      Escape from prison is a spook marker.


  31. I just read Alan’s long posts on MM, CF, SS, and Hoi. I am a fan of all 4 of them and the CF forum. I also read Josh’s response to Alan. I am also a fan of Josh’s writing. That all being stated, I am tending to agree with Alan.
    No one does really want to look really hard at our “idols”. The CF has led me to drop previous long hard beliefs and open my mind. MM has been a revelation to me. Truly mind blowing. POM is so interesting that I don’t do a lot of things I need to do to get my day moving. MM said it to us that one by one all of the idols and touchstones would fall away as we keep on seeking the truth. We will eventually be on that mountain road alone. I am paraphrasing but I think that was his warning to us. We know or have a strong belief that they like to warn Us ahead of time about psyops. I consider myself warned. The conference is seen as some sort of proof to who MM really is. I don’t doubt that there is a Miles Mathis and that he can speak eloquently on a number of subjects… In a controlled in environment. So can Elon Musk or Mark Zukerberg. Remember they are all front people for the PTB. Why couldn’t MM be that?There was supposed to be 8 attendees but there was only 7. Now where have we seen this numbers before?
    This psyop hurts cuz he is giving us some real truths. Truths that as seekers we are hungry to be fed. He is speaking to folks who have been digging and have seen thru so much fakery that we could puke. We had weathered a bunch of disinfo and shills. After all the limited hangouts, Dave McGowan anyone, that we believed for so long, here was a new take and a new look at history. We accepted it, questioned it at first, researched it at first, and gradually as each paper rang true, we stopped being aware of the false notes in the papers. MM has spoken so let it be true. Oh those false notes are there and they are really hard to work around. I overlooked some things cuz I thought it was my mind forgetting the order of the events. Or I would agree with 90 percent of the paper, and let the other 10 percent go. After all, this Miles. It’s not him, it’s me. The 10 percent is dangerous. The fake sense of security needs to shaken off.
    Alan’s questions were questions that need to be answered. Alan also says the word count is suspiciously long. No one wants to address this. Josh you did a veiled personal attack on Alan rather than discuss how Miles has time to do all this history and physics writing, as well as his artwork. Did I mention the amount of time spent researching. Or getting groceries, doing laundry, eating, sleeping? It is not possible. For the level of research and fact finding, plus typing, editing, and uploading needed in his pieces, to be that prolific there is a committee or research team involved. There is not enough speed in the world to keep up with his output.
    I suggest everyone reads Alan’s posts and see that the omissions of Miles are more telling than what is revealed. The questions that Alan asked about CF, MM, his being banned on CF without his questions being addressed are the brightest reddest flags in town. The misdirection and personal attacks, hey Josh, speak to a level of psyops I haven’t seen before. It speaks to a bigger issue that I am still processing. It is disappointing, it is maddening but it’s where my head is at today. Confused and Angry and Fearful.
    As MM says that is the goal of psyops. I think that MM is an amazing writer, analyst and is a limited hangout. There is a lot to learn from him but Dave M taught us a lot too.
    Let the attacks begin….


    1. I have interacted with Allan, as I wanted his opinion on some of my experience at Miles’ conference.
      He had clearly made up his mind about Miles, and after spending quite a bit of time “proving” to Allan that I was indeed at Miles’ conference, and beginning to give him some examples that I felt were pretty convincing in proving his reality, I gave up. Allan refused to even entertain new information that could challenge his beliefs.
      He did, however, admit that Josh was correct in pointing out some errors in his own “open letter to Miles mathis.”
      Last I checked, Allan hadn’t edited his blog post, though, or publicly responded to Josh.
      We are only left to speculate why.
      Both Mark and I have met Miles, and spent several days with him, and we trust he is legit. Josh clearly believes in Miles, as well.
      The word count issue has been addressed multiple times, and I guess it just comes down to what you believe.
      How much time would it take for an extremely intelligent, motivated person, without a day job, and few personal relationships, to produce Miles’ output?
      As far as I could tell, Miles didn’t have much going on in his life, other than his research/writings. It didn’t seem to me that he wasn’t painting much, and it wouldn’t surprise me if he only worked on commision at this point in his life.
      As I mentioned in my other recent post, Miles convinced me of his legitimacy, based on a couple of unique encounters with him, that any reasonable person would find difficult to explain away.
      And if Miles’ conference was simply a way to get a few people “out in the world” to support Miles publicly, and try to convince others that Miles is real… well, it was a lot of work to go through, to basically get me and Mark to unwittingly be Miles’ public champions.
      And clearly I’m not doing a very good job, if that is the case.


      1. Right. I live in Los Angeles and I had the fun task of helping with some aspects of the interior design of Elon Musk’s house. He was real, had the trappings of what you would expect a man of his wealth to have and he paid his bills. He is living a lifestyle that many would assume he should be. The house, the designers, the furnishings, the custom items, the grounds, the help, and the pool. It’s a lot of work to go through to prove who is. So Elon must be the real thing too.
        No expense spared. The amount of energy and money spent on the EM project is huge. One sofa was 9,000 bucks. And there were a lot of sofas. Attention to details is great depending on who is managing the details.
        All Miles did for his conference was post the dates, vet the participants, plan his talks, collect the cash and interact with fans. That doesn’t seem like a lot of work. The long range goals vs the amount of energy spent by their employee at a few days conference seems to me like a great payoff. The PTB agree. POM blog gets a ton of hits which gets MM more hits which makes viewers spread the word about both blogs which spreads the info that they want disseminated. The cost of the MM conference was much cheaper than one room at EM’s house. Their disinfo and their message gets widely dispersed and doesn’t cost them as much as one room in the house on the EM project. Plus the EM project involves photo shoots and interviews, the hope you buy the magazine or see the TV show to reinforce he is smart and rich. With the Miles project, it is much simpler. Skeptics show up, your suspicions are put to rest after a few days and reassured you do the disinfo spreading and pumping up of the MM project for them. Plus you paid for the lodgings, plane tickets, food and privilege of being there. All to do their work for them. That is probably an added value to the MM project.
        Do the math on the numbers, and look at the amount of material produced. Assumptions about MM personal life are nice but we don’t know any of it to be true. What we do know is that it is nearly impossible for the amount of work that he has produced to be possible.
        How much time was spent on the server or email issues? Responding to emails? Buying paints, stretching canvas, interviewing clients about their portraits? Spending time on Google earth looking at towns around Texas?
        I am sorry but living a spartan life and barely doing any interaction with anyone could still not produce the amount of work he has done. It means it’s by committee and that means it’s a limited hang out.

        I believe a lot of what the MM project has told us, I think a lot of deaths were faked but the ommissions are more telling. He warned us it would hurt when the ones we trusted fall away and it does.


        1. So, you met Elon, but were smart enough to see through his act.
          I met Miles, but am not smart enough to see through his act.
          Got it.
          At least I now know that I unwittingly played such a large part in the success of “The Miles Mathis Project.”
          Hey… I guess I’m still doing it by interacting with you, Charlie!
          Oh, that’s why you are so patronizing… to make me seem like a fool who’s judgement can’t be trusted!
          I guess Miles’ should have done a better job of vetting his attendees, and recruited smarter people.
          Oh, that’s right, he needed that magic number of 7. Damn you Charlie! How did you figure that one out?!
          You do realize, a project of that scale wouldn’t need to have a conference with real people at all, right? They could just have members of the “commitee” start a blog like POM and promote Miles.
          Or are you passively trying to suggest that that is what is going on here? I’m fake, and POM is a “project.”


        2. I already told my opinion about certain points raised by you. Asking questions is almost always useful. If somebody know or sees something suspicious he should share that info. The suspicions regarding Mathis are a bit weak in my opinion. The funny thing is that Mathis also has some weak or unfounded suspicions . For example I consider his paper about Apollonian Germ to be weak I found about Apollonian after I read the paper and then I looked at the channel and I still believe that the paper is weak. Apollonian germ actually responded with a video, and I agree with him that this paper is an embarrassment . I also agree with what he says after 5:10 regarding tradition. But you see, I believe Mathis has a liberal bias that probably made him see Apollonian in a negative manner. Overall, Mathis went beyond left vs right booshit, but as a human you cannot defeat all the biases. The funny thing is that many aspects of my philosophy are similar to ones expressed by Apollonian Germ but I will not go around saying that Mathis is a limited hangout because he doesn’t talk about how white countries are demographically engineered using immigration (and I actually believe that this is probably the most important subject and very relevant to the future of our freedom or lack of freedom).

          Liked by 1 person

    2. Mr. Townsend. Do you not view Mr. Weisbecker’s close ties to Hollywood as a red flag? Didn’t I see something about him working closely with Sean Penn to get one of his books made into a film? I’ll give you 5 ACW’s for 1 MM, thank you.


      1. I see it as a major red flag. I also do not need to choose one or the other. Both have info that is useful. The old phrase consider the source comes to mind. I have a lot of reservations about Alan. That doesn’t negate the questions that he asked that no one wants to address about MM and co. The group think and circling of wagons is happening and this is the exact behavior that so many people on this blog deplore about the 95 percent folks. I am asking people to step back and look objectively about the issue.
        Can anyone be this productive and do all the things he claims to do?
        So MM can be the genius because of the fact that many of us look at life thru the same lens but someone like Steve Jobs is a fake because we need him to fit into our narrative of how life really is?
        Hold MM to the same standards as the subjects of his paper. He doesn’t stand up.
        I want to be wrong but I don’t think I am.


        1. I will write later more comments, since I don’t believe it is a waste of time if done correctly. I can consider myself a student of Mathis but I am not a mindless fan (if someone criticizes Mathis) . Also if I write comments that are pro-Mathis, I don’t write them because I feel that my mission is to defend Mathis (a person that I never met). I try to exchange my point of view in such a manner that it could be useful for others, and other people can give a feedback that can help me. The funny thing is that Mathis puts an emphasis on people by writing about their genealogy. Yes it is important to know about the people or a person (especially if we find funny connections). At the same time there is the chance that we look at the person only to find faults. See my comment about the Apollonian Germ, where I mentioned that I can find faults with Mathis.

          Regarding the Steve Jobs analogy, my point was (I believe that analogy refers to my comment) that Mathis arrived at similar view points by following a different road when compared to myself. I had the same attitudes before reading Mathis and these attitudes differ greatly when compared to most people. If people do their best and arrive at the same things, those things are probably closer to the truth . These are things that are not promoted by the MSM or great institutions and require real work.

          Liked by 1 person

    3. I never met Mathis, I only sent a few e-mails (maybe 10 e-emails and he probably responded to 2 or 3 but most of my e-mails contained info or connections without asking Mathis a questions). I read many of his physics papers (I only have a general idea of his theories), his historical/conspiratorial papers and his papers on general topics. Actually reading his papers about general topics made me appreciate him more. His papers on general topics such as Yoga expressed attitudes and principles that align with my philosophy of life. In my opinion it is hard for a shill or non-virtuous person to fake the attitude found in his papers. But I am young (probably less than half of Mathis’s age), so maybe I can be easily fooled.
      Now according to Alan, Mathis writes 1500 words per day (in the period measured). I believe Mathis also writes poetry (I didn’t read his poetry), so he is probably a good wielder of words. Of course he also probably read a lot of literature and philosophy. This is important since he outed famous writers, and I assume he was already familiar to some of their biography. The literature that he read also probably mentions people from 18th and 19th century. This helps him make various connections. What I want to say is that Mathis was not born the day before he wrote those papers, he probably had a lot of superficial info about various famous persons from the last centuries. The major thing was that he looked at the biographies of these people and many links are readily available on websites like and the He is a painter and that helps him with photo analysis.
      His papers also have an informal tone, where he gives the impression that he has a dialogue with you. It is easier to write in an informal tone. The heavy stuff is usually the genealogy and most of it is on the websites mentioned above. The difficulty is that some links are broken or obscured or other anomalies and he must take a closer look at the biographies of relevant people.
      Alan also mentions British slang. Mathis already said that he spend time in Europe (Belgium and Ireland I believe).
      In my opinion the highlight of Alan’s criticism is the “beautiful logic” which comes from Miles’s response “Because I don’t know everything I am a limited hangout? Beautiful logic”. Other criticism also resolves around “he doesn’t cover that topic, so he is a limited hangout”. On the letsrollforum one guy didn’t like Mathis because he doesn’t believe in Satanism or other sexy subjects.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Calgacus, always lucid and cool. To me, you resemble more an argonaut than a caledonian. What I mean by that is that I can easily call you Nestor instead of Calgacus and both are well deserved IMHO. Always enjoy your input, Sir.


    4. Charlie, Charlie… you’ve been very quiet lately. You finally raise your hand and speak up your mind. I see this topic pushed some buttons. Not what I intended, though. You said you just read Alan’s long post. Why so? Because what is being discussed here made you read it or go back and re-read it? Your post is somewhat ambiguous. You make some good observations, but your comment lack seriousness all-around. You start by saying you are a fan of MM (and others) and then end up saying he is a LH. Are you saying you are a fan of a LH? Please think about it. You have potential but are dazed and confused. I did not get the context of yours: “The misdirection and personal attacks, hey Josh, speak to a level of psyops I haven’t seen before. It speaks to a bigger issue that I am still processing. It is disappointing, it is maddening but it’s where my head is at today. Confused and Angry and Fearful.”… Care to clarify or expand? Oh, and AFAIK, nobody is attacking anybody on a personal level.


      1. 47 Ronin,
        You’re being generous to Charlie.
        Here’s a quote from his above response to me…

        “With the Miles project, it is much simpler. Skeptics show up, your suspicions are put to rest after a few days and reassured you do the disinfo spreading and pumping up of the MM project for them. Plus you paid for the lodgings, plane tickets, food and privilege of being there. All to do their work for them.”

        Charlie is saying that I’m a fool who not only bought into the MM project after only a few days with the man… but I also paid money to do it!
        Sounds like a personal attack to me.

        Charlie didn’t address my couple of examples that helped to convince me that Miles was legit, either, despite his burning desire to believe in him.


        1. bmseattle, you are right, sorry, I overlooked that comment (My bad). What he wrote… That is not how it works. Charlie’s razor’s dull (His Occam’s razor, that is…). Yes, he is not doing it very well… that is why I wrote that I cannot take him seriously. Some wise man said it better than me: You can’t blame a guy for trying.


        2. bmseattle, I missed that Charlie’s comment, sorry, you are right. Charlie cannot be taken seriously. I replied to you last night but my comments are not going through.


          1. 47 – I found your comments in spam – it was several variations of the same message, as you were obliviously trying to get the comment to post. I let one out.

            I do not know why the comments were in spam. There is nothing in them to cause them to go there. When that happens contact me at mark at mpthct dot com, and be patient, and do not assume the worst.


    5. “The questions that Alan asked about CF, MM, his being banned on CF without his questions being addressed are the brightest reddest flags in town.”

      That was one of the funniest and stupidest things out of all the funny and stupid things that Allan wrote: accusing CF of kicking Alan off of CF for asking questions about Miles’s legitimacy. The entire thread devoted to Miles is basically everyone questioning his legitimacy. If you read that thread, you’ll see that Allan was not kicked off for that reason. On the other hand, me and Vexman were kicked off for defending Miles’s work.

      This whole thing about him being too productive is also a red herring. Yes, his output is impressive. Extremely impressive. But far from impossible. Here was something that somebody wrote at the Project Avalon forums when this “too many words” thing was brought up there:

      “In roughly the five year span of 2010 to 2015, Miles has written some 1.9 million words in his physics articles. I downloaded all the articles on his physics website, THE GREATEST STANDING ERRORS IN PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS, and counted the words in all the html and (after converting them to text) the pdf files.

      “In roughly the same time span, I, Paul, have posted some 2.6 million words, in posts, here on Project Avalon, while engaging in various other activities, such as writing software, building computers and administering this site. I am well past my prime in terms of productivity however.

      “One cannot begin to compare the cost of different styles and kinds of writings. The cost in human time per word of a doctoral thesis is orders of magnitude higher than the cost per word of something that is written in pretty much one or two passes. If you read Miles’ work, I expect that you will find that he writes quickly, with little editing. By the way, his style feels to me to be consistent across his work, suggesting a single author.

      “One also cannot begin to compare the productivity of the top most producers with even those close to them. While I was earning my mathematics degree, another student at the same school was earning a double major in Math and Physics. When it came time to write our theses, he wrote two, one per degree, as was required. However, he lost his math thesis, while writing his physics thesis. So, in the final two weeks before the deadline, this student rewrote his math thesis. He graduated … in both majors. Oh – and he did all this in three years, while the rest of us were taking four years for one major (Well, I actually took four and a half, turning my thesis in late, and almost was not allowed to graduate at all.)

      “When I was in my prime, I was several times more productive than I am now. I have also had the pleasure of working with or nearby to others, a very few others, who were several times more productive than I ever was, even at my best, such as the above student, or such as Brendan Eich (creator of Javascript, Mozilla’s Firefox, and now the Brave browser). Yes – such extraordinary productivity is quite possible, just not common.”

      I can attest that in my own field, there are people whose productivity I find just mind-boggling. But just because it isn’t possible for me to be that productive, doesn’t mean that it is impossible for everyone. And if you look at Alan’s very low productivity in light of the fact that he is an unemployed vagabond, you can see how his critique really seems more like sour grapes than anything else.

      I’m not going to repeat my other responses to Allan, though I will say that we corresponded about that and he acknowledged his error about the updates issue and said he would write an update but never did. I am going to add two more pieces of information that I have since learned:

      Miles wrote to me saying that what I said about him living abroad was correct. He had lived in England and in Europe and spent a good amount of time around English people. He picked up the British-isms from there. It is easy for me to believe this, since I have always picked up terms from Commonwealth country English speakers whenever exposed to them for some length of time. To this day I still say “reckon” instead of “guess,” which I picked up from my Australian dissertation advisor.
      Allan says the microphone in the Oswald photo was pasted in, and he uses the shadow as evidence. His assumption however is that the only light source in the scene was from the camera flash. However, if you do some research, you’ll find that the scene was actually lit up from multiple angles by TV lights, including ones that were set up on the left. So the shadow is likely coming from those lights.

      This part of the story is actually another sign that this was ‘made for TV’ since we’re told the news companies were given only very short notice that Oswald would be moved, and it stretches credulity to think they would have been able to set up all those lights and cameras, etc. in the short time they were given.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I find it very easy to accept that Miles has voluminous output. It is the product of a fluid mind, excellent memory, and a very high IQ. Those lacking such attributes find it daunting and imagine it cannot be so. (I don’t for a second mean to imply that I have these attributes – I do, but to a far lesser degree. My longer posts that require more research takes weeks. Miles puts them out in days, sometimes, I think hours.)

        Which reminds me, reading the Wikipedia account of the 1989 Tiananmen event, I ran across the word “sacked” for a guy who was fired. I knew immediately that it was written by a Brit. After all, I read the closing credits to Monty Pythons’ Holy Grail.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Miles hasn’t posted any of his own work for three weeks now. What does that mean? Using Charlie’s logic, either the committee at Langley has knocked off for the holidays early, or Miles is a slow adult.


        1. I have been waiting for him to dive into one of the wars, Civil, I or II … he has written briefly about I and II as restructuring/resettlement enterprises. But it is a big undertaking for any of us, even him.

          Below is a photographic comment put up on FB by Jeff Alich, just some guy. I responded to him that 11 was a Spook, or Intelligence marker, and explained a few of their uses. He responded the usual conspiracy theory retort, and I responded that lack of curiosity was not a marker of intelligence. He said he was a very curious person. I told him that children on playground are free and happy because they are surrounded by chain link fences. His “curiosity” was nothing more than a child fenced in and so free to be curious about all the things we are permitted to be curious about. I never heard back and my comments disappeared from an otherwise long and predictable thread.



          1. He appears to be another clueless zombie. Good on ya Mark for calling him on it. One of your commenters on here once referenced a researcher named Matthew Delooze. While I’m not prepared to go the reptilian route, the guy did post an intriguing piece about Veteran’s Day/Remembrance day that I highly recommend. I don’t know how to link in the comment section, but readers can go to and type “remembrance” in the search field. The article is entitled **”Swinging on the Gates of Hades – Remembrance Day Exposed.” ** He’s a Brit, btw.


        2. Kevin, I know in another thread you said you were going to follow Miles’s example and refrain from getting dragged into commenting in on-line forums. I just wanted to say that it’s nice to have you chime in every now and again. I also appreciate his reasoning for staying away, but for myself I appreciate having a place I can go and exchange ideas with likeminded people. Without that I would certainly feel a lot more isolated and lonely. Apparently Miles either doesn’t or doesn’t mind feeling isolated. We’re all built differently with different needs, and what works for him doesn’t necessarily have to work for you. I can say that for me the tradeoff of wading through all the shill comments is worth it.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Thanks, Josh. I feel like Al Pacino in GFIII. I agree with what you are saying. Miles is indeed a unique creature, which is probably why we feel the need to rush to his defense. I’m obviously not able to stop commenting, so I’ll just try to be restrained. I also like to see when you comment, especially when you slice and dice your opponent. But I will say 6 million d*cks before my morning coffee was…jarring.


        3. For some reason I can’t reply to your message further down, so I’ll reply here. You’re right about the bag of d*%&s comment. Over the line for sure. Sorry to be so jarring. Sorry, Mark, to sully your beautiful blog with metaphors. You should realize that the exchange here with Tom is a spillover from Vexman’s blog where Tom came in to spread around his “ball earth skeptic is the new Flat Earth” BS, plus some other things. Vexman shut him down (not at my request) because he doesn’t want that FE smelling up the place. So then “Tom” came over here to continue his yapping.


  32. Miles Williams Mathis is legit. His hard working parents, his meteorologist/weatherman brother, his Taos house, his papers… He is transparent. Hits and misses. He is the most prominent example of an ancient teaching about a man that tells the truth to deceive. How come? That is the question. I am not here to share that knowledge nor to defend anybody. Just to tell it like it is.


  33. I don’t think MM is a “limited hangout” or actively misdirecting, though I am skeptical about his so-called “science” papers. His hoax papers are generally very good, although I think he sometimes jumps too easily to conclusions, poses directed questions only to answer them the sentence after it, without taking into account other possibilities, which one could see as a kind of misdirection strategy.

    His “science” stuff for me does not improve the problem he notices. I think he is right about theoretical physics (actually magic, it’s not empirical) being clowns, but then presents an alternative (electrical universe) that doesn’t solve the problem; it does the same, making claims about things we simply cannot know because we can not visit that universe to actually take measurements; no empirical science as an “answer” to no empirical science.

    So I leave him with his “science” papers, I think he really believes in what he writes, not that he deliberately misdirects, but he is contradicting himself; irrational.

    That doesn’t affect his hoax papers that are mostly interesting, especially when he leaves the genealogy stuff a bit aside (in the end names can be faked an the whole genealogy route lost its foundation) and treats photo fakery, analyzes the stories, etc. I keep being updated with his work and check every day if there are new papers.

    The allegation that it somehow would be “impossible” to write so much text is I think unjustified. Some people can write, think and research very fast, we don’t know if he may have some working drafts running in parallel that would reduce his later time spent on each paper, etc. If this Allan guy, I don’t know him, says “impossible to write 1500 words a day”, that might say more about the limited writing abilities of this Allan himself, than about the abilities of Miles Mathis.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “His “science” stuff for me does not improve the problem he notices. I think he is right about theoretical physics (actually magic, it’s not empirical) being clowns, but then presents an alternative (electrical universe) that doesn’t solve the problem; it does the same, making claims about things we simply cannot know because we can not visit that universe to actually take measurements; no empirical science as an “answer” to no empirical science.

      So I leave him with his “science” papers, I think he really believes in what he writes, not that he deliberately misdirects, but he is contradicting himself; irrational.”

      How can you say Mathis science stuff does not improve the problem he notices? He has solved so many physics’ riddles and fundamental issues, that I don’t know where to begin with. For instance Euclid and his definition of point, derivatives of ln(x) and 1/x being wrong, acceleration formula issue, to mention ust a fewof the most fundamental postulates of modern-day, mainstreamed physics – he has corrected them to the point, where he was able to rebuild the mechanics of observed reality so it is consistent with the theory. That is unprecedented in the last 100 years or even since Newton, in my opinion, and you can’t refute it as fact, actually. It’s even more transparent how right he is with his corrected, de-unified theory, as all the past and present-day experiments prove Mathis’ predictions beyond doubt (most exemplary case would be double-slit experiment).

      Miles certainly does not present electrical universe as an alternative. If you understand his un-unified physics theory as electrical in nature, then you’ve completely misunderstood his conclusions. I would encourage you to challenge far better Mathisian physics experts then me with your statement. Josh would be one of them, many more of them can be reached here: . (It’s a forum, where Mathis physics can be discussed, not an official Miles’ forum.)

      There is one more thing I’d like to share with you. Let’s say, we agree that our reality is pretty much manufactured and faked/hoaxed. This goes both to popular affairs as with the science part of this reality. If you think about, what affects us more at the end of the day? PTB’s faking of some fear-porn events, deaths and disasters or manufacturing fake physics, chemistry, geology, etc…? I dare to say, that the two can’t even be compared. Let’s remove the fake/hoax part of the equation for a moment – the impact of true science on our lives would be even impossible to predict or describe. I do have some imagination, but it boggles my mind to try and imagine some serious amount of tax-payers money invested in Mathisian experiments or R&D. Maybe Tesla could, in some small part about it by pure empiric approach, though.


      1. I start with your last point and then work backwards. A few days ago I was recommended to have a look at John Le Bon by Ab from Fakeologist and the guy has blown my mind. Apart from a calm, very intelligent and funny Australian thinker, he did what Miles Mathis in his science papers didn’t do; separate empiricism (testable science, experiments; the scientific method) from theoretical “science” (magic, number juggling).

        I have always been suspicious of this Tesla talk in the so-called “alternative community” where he was hailed as some kind of hero destroyed by the mainstream. I highly recommend you to listen to this podcast by John Le Bon (and check out his other stuff while you are there) about Tesla where he goes back to the basis; what did Tesla say and publish himself. On the former; craziness and mainstream support, on the latter; almost nothing.

        MM in his science papers does not separate empirical from theoretical science, it is more, he uses points from “quantum physics” (magic) and “relativity” (idem) in his work. He basically says; “look, that pond is murky, so look at my pond”, where he is right in the first part, but he has muddied his own pond with the same crap from the murky pond.

        You may remember we (you, Josh and me) had a battle about this a year ago on Cluesforum, funnily (that despicable gate keeping hoi.polloi creature is all but funny but ok) leading to all of us banned there, a ban Ab adequately described as “a badge of honor”. It was about this pi=4 bullcrap. Miles has presented something which is clearly from the starting definition false, and the problem is; he doesn’t recognize his own errors, because he is so submerged in his whole science thesis that he cannot go back anymore. That is, he can, but his ego doesn’t allow him to do that what is needed; reflection and admitting his whole house is built on loose sand and foundations taken from the murky pond.

        Your comment that “A is MORE IMPORTANT than B” I disagree with. There are only personal interests in this field of study, A is not more important than B, just like B is not more important than A. Everyone has their own interests and favorite topics. You may consider the hoaxes less important than the science stuff, others may disagree. You don’t have the right to define for others what they need to see as more important or not.

        Like we discussed here before, some people see all of this not as a hobby, but as a mission. I disagree with that and enjoyed the wise words John Le Bon, Ab and Tom Dalpra (also Fakeologist) have spoken about that, but even in case you do, you can say that the 95% cares sh*t about that science stuff. They are much more affected by the hoaxing, the lies in history (that’s what I particularly like in MM’s work); providing the bigger picture. So if you want to reach out and see this whole endeavor as a mission, then the entrance is wide open to our peers with hoaxing and staged histories and it’s much more closed with science.


        1. A few days ago I was recommended to have a look at John Le Bon by Ab from Fakeologist and the guy has blown my mind. …

          Gaia, thanks for sharing the link. I’ll be back when I am through …


          1. Cool. The guy has sound reasoning, from what we read below heavily missed even in this small circle of “truth seekers”, as it appears. Mark, also a tip for you to check him out. It was the main reason why my research on that little hoax hasn’t come off yet.


        2. I expected more from you, you evaded all issues raised in my previous comment. You even added some new, so if I decided to start picking on them, it would probably create more irrelevant text in your next reply. It makes me believe you’ve never really dealt with Mathis’ physics in any purposeful way. Or else, I believe, you would have commented with questions rather then judgments based on shallow understanding of the subject.

          It’s the other way around, quantum physics borrowed the point from the fundamental mathematics and that’s why it all went wrong with later calculus, derivatives,etc. See more here . You see, this essay is among fundamentals of Mathisian physics and essential in understanding where does Pi=4 in kinematic situations part come from. There are some other important parts in understanding why he came to such conclusions, though it’s very clear to me that you haven’t read none of it. He never said, nor did I, that Pi=4 when measuring a static circumference of a circle, nor will any Mathisian physics fan say so. Only if you are trying to downplay or blackwash his work, would that make sense to me. Do you have anything more substantial to your accusation about his false definitions other then your opinion? Or do you expect me to believe you ex cathedra? Btw, quantum is the smallest physical quantity that can exist on its own, and by definition, a photon is a quantum. Are you saying photons are magic?

          While at it, I went through your link, I even searched the site for “Tesla” and all I was able to find, was few articles with most of their text copy/pasted, with one functional video containing authors’ opinion about Tesla. There are no sources to his claims, other than the link to some unofficial Tesla-fan site and a YT video playlist. He, too, apparently wishes we/I should believe his story about Tesla ex cathedra. If you want to continue believing Tesla had nothing to do with inventions, that’s fine by me. I only threw him in my comment as a reference to ultimate imagination.

          I never took any right to define anything, I only explained things as they are. You have the right to disagree, of course, but it won’t change the way things are.


        3. Gaia – will do – just got the links menu back, and have to clean it up a bit. If I like it I will post him there. Thanks for the tip. Good links are hard to come by.


        4. I am familiar with John le Bon and I also agree that Tesla has funny connections. I believe John covered the fact that Tesla thought Mars was sending radio messages to Earth. I forgot all the details but his podcast is a good start. John le Bon also talks about how he questioned Cavendish experiment, but Mathis probably did a better job (I don’t know who was first to question the experiment).

          The science stuff is not more important than historic/hoax stuff. A lot of science can be done without deep theoretical understanding. Hagia Sophia, Pantheon and the Temple of Bacchus were done without knowing about the 3 laws of Newton, only using geometry, statics and experience with materials. Many physical effects can be discovered by experimentation without a good theory but the process is much slower. The elites prefer theories that are obscured by many things like heavy math so they will not have competition from Johnny the engineer, that works in a garage. If the theory is bad you need more experimentation , so more money to buy additional equipment. Nonetheless the history stuff is connected to the science stuff since you see the elite families in both. Also things like the nuke hoax touches both in a very strong manner (medicine is another big field).

          What makes Mathis different than John le Bon, is that Mathis also did constructive things. No matter how close to the truth, Mathis tried to build a theory of physics which “At least bring some new things to our thoughts.” (to use John Locke). Even his genealogical stuff is constructive since now we know more about the structure of power and the fact that these people belong to a relatively few select families. Deconstructing stuff is the first big step but it leaves a void that can lead to nihilism (all is fake). I wonder if the nihilism of “all is fake” variety can help the elites push the reality is an illusion theory. Mathis touched on this here .

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Neither Miles nor John Le Bon were the first to question Cavendish experiment. Miles wrote about it and the search for any internet source of criticism about Cavendish, but only founds a trace of existence to such work published by S.J. Barnett, from 1902, with the abstract recently deleted by Harvard.

            Quoting Miles from :

            The same was true of other papers listed in Just to name a few, a paper by P.V. Moore et. al. from IOP, 1994, no longer available as of 2008. A paper by J.K. Hoskins from ADS, 1981, no longer available as of 2008. A paper by Jean Sivardiere from AIP, 1997, no longer available as of 2008. Sivardiere’s paper is titled “Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in a Cavendish Experiment”, which is highly suspicious. As I have said in another paper, the breaking of a so-called spontaneous symmetry is now code for an experiment that doesn’t work. It is code for a set of “violations”, as in Lorentz violations. Sivardiere is probably telling us about violations in a Cavendish experiment, in other words, showing us where a Cavendish experiment failed. But even the abstract of his paper is now considered dangerous, and it must be taken off the internet.

            In that quoted PDF (and two additional papers), Miles shows that Cavendish actually measured the effects of blocking repulsion. It’s caused by charge and to understand why exactly Cavendish measured anything, Miles explains all about it on 37 pages of text. Although this paper alone is important, it doesn’t stand on its own, as the biggest difference is as well in the interpretation of gravity itself:

            There is a two-part answer to this, and the first part is that although gravity is not a force, it is certainly capable of creating a force. In other papers I have shown that logically, gravity is most efficiently explained by expansion, both as a matter of math and of theory. In the first instance, this makes the attraction only apparent and the diminishing distance only geometric. Gravity is a three-dimensional acceleration, and we already knew this from the nature of g. The dimensions of that constant are the dimensions of acceleration, not force. However, we also know that any acceleration can create a force, and gravity is no exception.

            So, the difference between Mathis’ and Le Bon’s understanding of Cavendish’s findings are about charge, knowledge about it and its implications. The consequence of not understanding charge or to disregard its existence, would make you dismiss fundamental postulate of physics and its interaction with the observed reality. Just as was the case with John Le Bon’s attempt with Cavendish experiment, clearly.


        5. “You may remember we (you, Josh and me) had a battle about this a year ago on Cluesforum, funnily (that despicable gate keeping hoi.polloi creature is all but funny but ok) leading to all of us banned there, a ban Ab adequately described as “a badge of honor”. ”

          No, I don’t remember anyone else getting booted off CF at that point except for me and Vexman. What was your handle over there in that debate?


          1. This is what I wrote about Mathis’s pi=4 crap and I still stand by my main arguments against his thesis:

            “pi is defined as ”describing the relation between the circumference of a circle and its diameter (or radius)”
            – this relation is circumference = 2pir
            – additionally, pi also is related with the area of the circle as area = pi * r^2

            The proponents of “pi=4” do not dispute this, yet point to a strange new situation:

            “pi=4 in kinematic situations”
            Why would someone use the same symbol outside of its defined area and claim such a thing?

            The question is analogous to the calorie, defined as “the approximate amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere”

            What Mathis essentially is doing, is saying “Hello world, the calorie is not X but Y here in the Himalayas”; he steps outside of the realm of the definition to show the definition is “wrong”. This point has been discussed in the start of this thread, but was stepped over fast.”

            On Miles himself, I am since that post more convinced he is true and real, mainly because of the people here who have met him in person.

            Also, I do not think he is deliberately misdirecting or confusing, but still question why he uses so many words instead of simple diagrams to explain what he tries to say. That may be because he is so intelligent that he sees his thesis from words only and expects others to see the same things, I don’t know. But using simple diagrams is key to convey a message about physics, especially if your claim is that you have found a “breakthrough”.


    2. For some reason I can’t reply to your message below so I’ll have to reply here.

      OK, V.O., good to have a sense of who you are. But I didn’t see where you got banned from CF. One question to you: do you believe the ‘rocket doesn’t work in a vacuum’ stuff Shack is pushing over there?

      I’m not going to re-hash the pi=4 debate, which I already won as evidenced by Simon shutting down that thread. That was before you chimed in. Your criticisms of his work on pi are interesting because they appear to be substantive but are really criticisms of form and style: you don’t like that Miles is calling his thing Pi or ‘the real Pi’ or whatever. I agree. Strategically it’s the wrong way to go. But that doesn’t mean or imply in any way that he is substantively wrong. It has nothing to do with that. Same with the diagram argument-it’s stylistic nit-picking. And I loved how in you CF post, you said he doesn’t use diagrams but then proceeded in the same post to use two of the many diagrams he has used in his papers to explain his substantive point. Again, even if you think he doesn’t use enough diagrams, that’s not a substantive argument. I made that point in my much longer reply to your post over at CF:

      You don’t have a substantive argument against him. You cannot find fault with his long paper pulling apart Newton’s and Feynman’s and others’ derivations of the orbital velocity equation, and it was his work on that which led directly to his conclusions about Pi. That work is foundational. Nor do you take issue with the actual substance of any of his papers on Pi. All you can say is “if we were this wrong we would have realized it by now. I’m not so sure. Not at all. You also don’t know if they have noticed but aren’t telling us, instead just fudging the equations to make things work. At the end of the day you offer no substantive counter-argument nor show where he is wrong in his reasoning and derivations.


      1. The question is not right, it’s something I see presented wrong on so many places on the internet. The mainstream does not even call space a “vacuum”, so to name it that is misrepresenting the claim you want to attack.

        What is there up there in “space” nobody knows for sure and we never will. But taking the current model that pressure decreases with altitude seriously (I see no reason why that idea is wrong), you eventually end up in a near vacuum that they claim exists, with 10^-16 bar of pressure.
        Also, the temperature of space is set to be 3 K (-270 C). Again, nobody knows if that number is true either.

        But as the same people who claim we can send (and steer!) rockets into space are the people using these conditions, we can take those conditions against those people to test their claim.

        And then it becomes clear that under those conditions of P (10^-16 bar) and T (3 K), there is no gas, so also no thrust and no rocket propulsion could ever work. Check out phase diagrams of near-zero temperatures and near-zero pressures and everything becomes solid or superfluid (H, He). And as there is hardly a medium in space (10^-16 bar), there is no transient effect, so that would happen instantaneously; no gas can ever leave a rocket, even if it could get there in the first place. The material would become solid molecules and dissipate into space without doing any work.

        I was the first (and until today only) one to bring temperature into that discussion about “rockets in space” over at CF. Before, it was regarded as a purely mechanical question, yet it is a chemical-physical question, not just mechanical.

        In all the years I have studied NASA and their online shills (that do exist) or enthusiast believers (the majority), I have recognized the same pattern; actively excluding defining factors (in this case T) and simplifying things that cannot be simplified.

        If you believe in Mathis’s models, fine for you. From what I have read, I don’t buy it and have given my arguments for that position. If others are not convinced of that, no problem, we all have different views.

        It is that religious cultist attitude that makes CF unbearable. Fakeologist is much more open, with room for disagreements and if you want, I’d like to have a chat with you there whenever we can do that. I can also explain better why I think space travel is and always will be impossible.


        1. And then it becomes clear that under those conditions of P (10^-16 bar) and T (3 K), there is no gas, so also no thrust and no rocket propulsion could ever work.

          Not exactly. There is the gas the rocket brings with it, i.e. the solid/liquid fuel it burns to generate that gas, and expells with momentum.


          1. That is the exact point, there is no gas. Even if you would imagine that rocket to be somewhere in space (let’s say 10,000 km altitude), there is no gas escaping from the nozzle, because the material that would escape would instantaneously turn solid because of the T and P conditions and the absence of a medium, so no transient effect; instantaneous.

            Think about a human crying in an extremely cold environment (like -200 C, which is still warm (+70 C) compared to space, allegedly at least). Their tears would freeze before even exiting the eye… And that is still in atmosphere, so with a transient effect due to pressure. Imagine that without it and even colder.

            Really, it is not hard to grasp, but as this was never discussed before anywhere (always deliberately ignored by NASA c.s.; their favorite m.o.), it may be a challenge to understand.


  34. Oh vey. This long thread about MM’s legitimacy proves one thing. The American education system has long been sabotaged or was worthless from the beginning. And you folks wonder why MM keeps to himself?
    There are some readers who can’t differentiate between truth and lies.
    That reminds me, the protocols are a forgery, right? So therefore everything in it is false too? I’m going back to mainstream news then. 😂


  35. If you think about, what affects us more at the end of the day? PTB’s faking of some fear-porn events, deaths and disasters or manufacturing fake physics, chemistry, geology, etc…? I dare to say, that the two can’t even be compared. Let’s remove the fake/hoax part of the equation for a moment – the impact of true science on our lives would be even impossible to predict or describe.

    Here we have IMHO the 95 vs. 5% division again. The great majority is brainwashed and indoctrinated to the brim. I long suspected that THIS is the actual purpose – ignore the real important things in live, and concentrate on shallow entertainment and superficial thrill. It keeps you from realizing you are a slave.

    Maybe Tesla could,…

    I immediately associated the fact that Tesla had a certain investment episode with Rockefeller …


    1. Tesla had relation to J.P. Morgan as to the buyer of shares in his company, while Rockefeller had no known relation to him. I think Tesla tried to hide the true nature of his Wardenclyffe Tower project, that J.P. Morgan financed until the point when he realized the project was much, much more then some bogus story Tesla was trying to trick him with. It may have much to do with Tesla tapping into the “power of the ether” and trying to produce energy using still unknown mechanism. But this is just my own speculation, as not much is factually known about this particular Tower project. I wonder why, though…


      1. Agree – I did not want to imply Tesla was an agent. He, as almost anything and anybody, was monitored, to steer him into “safe waters” where he could not threaten the PTB monopoly.

        BTW, access to the MM sites is blocked from my company PC since a few weeks, being categorized as “Gambling”. Done by out IT service provider, which seems to pull “official” black lists. In contrast to many fake Alt-Media news and New-Age obfuscation sites, which are freely accessible …


  36. Vexman
    So the jew cries foul and you have to jump hoops?
    So let’s get this straight. MM main thesis ist jewish families run the world and are responsible for our daily dose of fake reality. I guess you would agree with me.
    Then your buddy Josh comes along, admitted to be jewish and living in Israel, feels offended and you have to act as a saviour to the jew? I didn’t even address my statement to him but somehow he feels obligated to answer. Interesting .
    By the way forget FE, how about the holohoax.
    Did 6 million ppl die? Can you answer that? Do you have white guilt?
    Honestly I couldn’t care less what MM or any of you have to say, I just want to find out what your general assumptions are and if they contradict each other. I have done my research. And I seriously have to doubt anyone’s mental capacity if he recognizes certain things to be true and if same properties apply to another person somehow they are invalid?
    So are you ppl interested in truth ?
    If you cannot handle the jewish question then you are not a truther.
    Let’s see who is the first to shoot back with ad hominems.


    1. Well you figured it out, Flat Earth Tom: I’m the Zionist puppet master behind PoM and VexmansThoughts, and it’s only a matter for time until Miles W. Mathis falls right into my hands.

      And because you asked, here’s what I think about 6 million. I think you can go eat a bag of 6 million dicks.


  37. From his latest paper:

    We saw
    in a previous paper that Steve Jobs is Jewish
    . Well, so is Bill Gates. He is from the same
    families as the Bushes and all the other Presidents. This is not guesswork. It is posted at,
    though you have to dig a bit. The answer is available, you just have to ask the question and then not be
    diverted by other people. Don’t ask people on forums. Don’t ask Snopes. Don’t ask Yahoo. Don’t ask
    anonymomous bozos at information sites. Don’t ask JewornotJew. Ask the genealogies, and prepare to go deep.”

    If I were Gilad Japhet, I would go like this: Nice Sales pitch, I like it. Let me send you a thank you gift.

    I just realized MM’s main audience are Baby Boomers… Did you know what is the 2nd most popular hobby in this country? Genealogy.


    As much as I admire his work, and, there’s something interesting in his Genealogy research and connections
    (I have zero Genealogy expertise or formation, so no ground for me to assess his research in this field),
    but I still feel that something does not click right. It could just be me, but in the paper regarding Bill Gates and Microsoft,
    I do not see how he shows or demonstrates Microsoft is a front of the Matrix.
    I have always wondered why he went down that path or at least why he has taken that approach lately on his research (the Genealogies). He is free to do as he wishes, it’s just that leaves me wondering. Let me say also that this does not demerit all his output, which I believe is genuine and don’t have a problem accepting a smart and off the grid human being is capable of. So finding Genealogy is such a popular hobby in the US among people 50+ is really revealing 2 me.


    1. Do you mean to say that you don’t understand the emphasis on genealogy. I actually believe this is the most important turn and also a very good turn in his approach. When you see that there are many family connections between these people, it changes everything. This approach has some problems but I believe you can uncover a lot of things when used in combination with other things. Even the broken links and other anomalies in the genealogies can tell us things or at least make us suspicious.
      I used to listen to Michael Tsarion and he talked many times about Akhenaten and the atonists. Tsarion also believes that the European royalty are descendants of these Atonists. So I already believed that these Elites that make a big family were controlling Europe for at least 1000 years ( accounting even for a possible shorter chronology) , even before Mathis’ papers. He is also coming to the conclusion that there was no infiltration by the elite Jews, the elite Europeans = elite Jews since 10th century. I believe that Atonists= elite Jews + elite Christians + elite Muslims. I am pro-genealogy approach probably because I am interested in tracing these Atonists through history. Unfortunately the difficulties increase especially if you go back more than 1000 years.


      1. Yes, kind of. I agree with you. Genealogy is very useful in discovering the family connections, as you well said, it changes every goddamn’ thing. What I was not very fortunate to articulate in my last comment is that it amazes me that (israeli companies) top dog, israeli Gilad Japhet, may be unaware of what MM is doing and uncovering with his reaseach and still let them freely roam the Genealogies. But as Steve Kelly well said in another post, as long as you do not take any action, you are free to think whatever you want. It’s not what you know, it’s what you do. So perhaps that is the reason why he is left alone and somewhat free pass to unearthing the connections. Who knows. I find hard to believe these israelis in Israel are unaware/clueless of what is going on with MM and his latest research path.


        1. If an average joe like me finds out about something, guarantee you the intelligence people and many others where there way before. Miles said in one of his articles that certain powers that be offered him the good life, not sure for paintings or to hush his PDF mouth but he turned it down, we can all admire that right….hmm maybe, he seems to be well off anyway. By now I suspect they are using him somehow. Maybe slowly letting us know who the powers that be are and what’s going on.


          1. Artichokes! Well said, mate! By know, you know the motto very well: “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled”. Can’t say they are using him/us. But Billions of bilious blue blistering barnacles that I’m certain something must be going on.


      2. You’re right, it is important those genealogies. My point with Mathis is that it should be supportive and not dominating. I understand his fascination for it; I mapped my genealogy out completely already before knowing Mathis and I am one generation younger than the baby boomers.

        Also MM makes some big leaps sometimes, assumptions like “Reid = Reed”, in his Gates paper, while I know my rare surname is written similar as others who are not family or only wayy back.

        I can recommend diving into your geneaology; it makes clear where you came from. Luckily I found almost all of my family being commoners with just a handful of well known (not famous) people.


        1. Conspiracy themes attract far more readers (traffic, clicks) than Economics/Science for sure. His audience perhaps is not the same that reads Paul Krugman or Thomas Friedman. That could very well be another reason for the omission of Economics in his Topics list. He knows most readers are Boomers. Nothing wrong with that. Man’s gotta survive. The man does not pay any rent or mortgages or insurance but he gotta eat and at least pay property taxes, you know. Material for painting should be expensive as well, perhaps that is why he has left out painting on the sidelines and dove into the Genealogies, as I said earlier, I just found out Genealogies are big business billions of users and thousands of millions in funding. Other problem I find (it’s no MM’ss fault) using is that it follows Wikipedia model in that “anyone” can edit and overwrite the records… or so they say.
          ( (their parent company and separate website) is more restrictive since you are a paying member.


          1. I doubt he knows anything about his readers other than those who communicate with him. If he is like me, for instance, he writes about what is interesting to him. If it lands silently, so be it.


          2. MT, since you commented: What do you think about Genealogy as a hobby. The info was news to me. In your opinion, what is it that BB find it so fascinating? Not all Boomers… but not few either. If you missed my comment earlier about the israeli companies involved in Genealogies, I would appreciate your opinion about it. If you just don’t find it interesting or don’t even care, that’s fair too.


          3. Let me say that any story, paper, pdf , book, blog post, etc that gets out of the gate is because of somebody wanted it out. This applies to McGowan, Mathis, et al. This is independent of the fact that they are or are not LH. I don’t give a fig if they are or are not LH. That is not the point I’m making. What I’m saying is this: If those stories were out, it is because somebody wanted them out. No need to clarify “somebody”, I guess.


          4. LaSalle, have your fishing trips here been fruitful? I would be very interested to witness your catch, if you’re wiling to share.


          5. Kevin, my catch is not very good so far but it is entertaining. I do not have answers to share, but please heed: “Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.” ― Voltaire.
            Mark T. says that MM is “either a spook or an amazingly insightful man, can’t decide”. How about you? What would make you decide? What is it that would make tipping the scales for or against?


          6. If I may be so bold as to interject here, as I know your question is for Kevin, it appears to me that MM solves riddles so that we can advance in our understanding. Spooks want to do the opposite, keep the juggler’s balls in the air, never reaching a conclusion.


          7. La Salle,
            MM’s last two papers are about Bill Gates and the fake Leonardo painting. Never does he mention 1.) Saudi Crown Prince Salman being the buyer of the artwork, 2.) In November Bill Gates traveled to Riyadh to meet Salman where the two reviewed aspects of cooperation according to the vision of Saudi’s Kingdom 2030 program. It sounds a lot like agenda 2030 doesn’t it? 3.) Also in November, it was reported that Riyadh is so keen to begin cooperation with Israel against Iran that it doesn’t care what kind of deal is reached with the Palestinians. 4.) There’s the Saudi purge, recent arms sales, and Trump and Salmans relationship. 5.) Not even a comment on the painting including occult symbolism and making Jesus look effeminate.

            It looks like Crown Prince Salman is going to beat out Trump, Putin, and Taylor Swift as “Person of the Year.” But never mind that, the Sforza’s were Jewish, and the Medici’s were crypto-Jews. And some guy won’t bake a gay cake.

            So, La Salle, feel free to judge me on this question. Which way do I appear to be leaning?


          8. No worries, Mark. Bold is good. Thanks for your input. At the end of the day, I think whether he is or is not a spook is inconsequential. In this particular case, the person or character is not as important as the ideas and concepts conveyed. You even went the Thomas’ way (the disciple) and needed to see the wounds to believe so to speak… That’s fine. I was wondering the other day that even MM acknowledges spooks are everywhere and there’s no way in the world a spook did not attend at the conference. Somebody there in attendance’s got to have been a spook. Think about it, that event, when they went out to lunch or at night for some drinks was the perfect opportunity to get into the house and bug the house allover… whon knows. I am a recluse and in my mind there is no freakin’ way I am letting 8 strangers into my house for any reason.
            Anyway, those are just musings. The thing that scares me (scare using rethorically, of course) is that in the very near future AI programs or bots will be able to pen articles or papers a la Miles. They already do it with financial reports, sports and news in general, so we are not so far away.


          9. Kevin, you essentially are saying what I’ve been thinking about MM–his work is centered on the past, while neglecting current events. THEY allow him to keep going, because he primarily reveals what they’ve already done–“revealing the method”, in a sense. So us “conspiracy theorists” spend countless hours digging in the past, instead of observing the present and uncovering their schemes, perhaps even predicting what THEY will most likely do next. It’s counterproductive. And how do we know those free genealogy sites aren’t tampered with? They certainly aren’t dependable, especially with the Israeli connection; it could be part of the project.

            Mark, you said “MM solves riddles so that we can advance in our understanding. Spooks want to do the opposite, keep the juggler’s balls in the air, never reaching a conclusion.” But, is MM giving us true understanding and accurate information? Are we sure? No. Spooks also work to distract and confuse by exposing “new” information which may or may not be true, so as to cause people to doubt what they think they know, sending them on fruitless wild goose chases and losing faith in any “reality” (whatever that is). For example, the “new” info about Hitler being disseminated: he’s either the most evil man that ever lived, or the caring and noble leader portrayed in “The Greatest Story Never Told”. The end result in just more confusion and “mindf@ckery”. We can only believe we know what (we think) we know…but how do we really know? (See, it’s infected and affecting my mind and MY “reality”!) The REAL project is to keep us looking “out there”, preoccupied and confused about our reality, thereby distracting us from the truly important and meaningful things in life…primarily our spiritual life and finding the gold–the gnosis–within our own selves.


          10. La Salle. No “die has been cast” here. I’m merely venting some dissatisfaction with MM’s recent output. To me, he lacks focus and motivation. Perhaps he’s just tired of casting his pearls before swine. That does not come close to negating his voluminous output thus far. If Miles and I were still collaborating, I’m confident he would have added my opinions (if presented compellingly and coherently) as an addendum to his paper. He posts guest writer contributions all the time.

            I’m beginning to believe AI is taking over reality, so I’m probably not a reliable source in your ongoing attempt to out Mathis.


        2. La Salle. Your comment about AI reminded me that I forgot to mention that the AI ambassador/robot Sophia recently became a citizen of Saudi Arabia.

          My focus has turned to more sinister subjects and events. I still enjoy conjecturing about celebrity deaths and related matters, but I fear (not rhetorically) that your bolded comment is “true.” A word that is quickly becoming meaningless since the ability to differentiate a bot from a spook from a feeling, thinking human is fast slipping through our hands.


          1. Kevin (or Mark), when you spoke with Miles Mathis at his conference, did you ask why he goes like half-way into his “science” stuff? Why does he embrace blatant magic (relativity, particle “physics”, other so-called theories that are nothing more than mathematical magic) and above all; space travel? He has spoken out against Musk and NASA (duh), but never cleared the air that space travel is impossible.

            I get the feeling he doesn’t because for his “science” stuff he relies on the claims made by those clowns to push his untestable “electrical universe” meme. He went down an alley, and refuses to go back, because it would mean half his material is bogus. I see it as an ego thing; he cannot admit he was wrong (like Mark and any other sane person does).


          2. Gaia, I did not attend the conference. Miles and I parted ways over the subject of AI, cloning, robotics, and transhumanism. He claims it’s (mostly) fake and that they are nowhere near what they claim to be doing. He’s much smarter than me, so I pray to God that he is right.


          3. Your questions are better directed at Brandon from Seattle – he’s not been around in a while but attended the conference and had more one-on-one time with MM. During the science sessions, I tried hard, but could not follow the complexities well. Above my pay grade.


          4. Gaia, you have again claimed Mathis dissipates blatant magic with relativity (among many other issues listed), so let me stop here for a second. Just what is in your opinion half-way about relativity concept? Can you elaborate further or link to your rebuttal of both Einstein’s and Mathis’ work? Do you object to philosophical issue or concept, or transforms, mathematical equations, just where do you think it’s false? Should I take your word for it against millions of Mathis words, and hundreds of his essays? What you’re doing with your alleged criticism is not serious nor scientific, it seems more like a witch-hunt. We’ve tried to exchange some thoughts elsewhere, right, VO? But not with too much mutual joy, I’d say.

            You’ve already admitted previously that you haven’t delved into Mathis’ “opus physicum”, but I really wonder why you keep pushing your unsupported opinion. Is it possible that you have your beef with Mathis because he doesn’t seem to deny the possibility of space travel? What if I told you that we had an e-mail exchange about this issue and most probably he would be willing to reply to your intelligent question about the space travel? Have you tried to do so and presented your issues with the physics of rocketry to him? I suppose you haven’t or we’d have read about it. And by the way, at this moment in time – he would not claim space travel is impossible, just doubts about any manned missions above low Earth orbit. That is, with the technology we’re aware of.

            To which extent is the particle physics or idea of quantum false in your opinion? Do we have sub atomic particles like electrons, protons and neutrons within the atomic structure or not? If not, can you link here to the source of such claim? I’m sure you’re more than aware about the huge implications of your statement and will not find my request too demanding.

            “Electrical universe” -> why use quotations? Because you’re aware that Mathisian charge is not purely electrical? Or is it because you want to push him into the EU meme to make your point of false premise? The way you presented your thesis about Mathis and/or his ego is completely wrong and void of any serious scientific substance. Over here, we call such attempts “yellow press”.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. Vexman, it started with the relativity theory around 1915 which is based on the assumption there is not time equality. This contradicts our every day experience and makes no sense at all. We know for sure events can happen at the same time no matter how far away they happen. Take a look at the first “prove” of the RT: solar eclipse from 1919. They claim they could photograph stars during the eclipse somewhere in Brazil in the middle of the jungle using ancient insensitive plate cameras and then photographed the same stars at night somewhere else and the stars had slightly different positions because their light was bend by the gravity. And this was accepted by the scientific society and never criticized till today. And this fake theory is the basis for everything else from Higgs to Bosons. Einstein himself is so fake. Wikipedia writes he published 5 of his most important papers between April and June 1905 including his Phd and calls this “explosion of genius. A poor scholar who works as patent clerk becomes over night worlds most famous genius. It’s so fake, all of it.


    2. A couple of things from Miles paper on Bill Gates that may have
      got by him or they did not and he didn’t comment on them .
      He mentioned musician Robert Palmer AND Mr. Palmer married
      Johnny Depp’s mother later in both their lives .
      Depp’s bio admits he is a ‘ distant relation ‘ of the Queen
      of England .

      Miles shows how Melinda Gates looks like Ana Gasteyer ,
      he didn’t say how Ana grew up in D.C. and her bestie was
      Amy Carter . She could in fact have the spookiest
      background of the SNL cast .


  38. On page 4 of the Bill Gates piece
    Miles mentions a Richard Starkey ,
    not noting :
    Richard Starkey, MBE ( Most Excellent Order of the British Empire )
    , known professionally
    as Ringo Starr, is an English drummer, singer,
    songwriter and actor …..
    And Miles quickly ties Starkey in with the Stanley
    names , Ringo and John Lennon .

    My personal experience with names :
    My maternal line has the name Neil ,
    that should have an O’ or a Mc prefacing , they
    being immigrants from east coast of Ireland ( Catholic )
    Lazy clerks at Ellis Island , I guess .
    To confound things even more , my mother later found
    she had relatives who spelled the name Neill .
    On my fathers side , there are a few members of the Peerage
    with my last name , if you put ‘ La ‘ to the front , the number
    of Peerage hits doubles .
    The name clearly began with the Norman invasion from France
    into Britain .
    If there are prizes for such a connection , I have
    received none so for .


    1. I have no doubt that Lennon {the Lennon twins, as I see it) are in the peerage, but the only connection to the Stanley’s is his mother, Julia Stanley. However, the woman who played that part appears to me to be a literary device, having been killed off as misdirection to keep us from learning his true name and background. Starkey Stanley is a real reach, in my view.

      [I just read the MM paper, and see now that the jump from Starkey to Stanley was via a grandmother, and not by connecting names illogically. My mistake.]


  39. ” Starkey Stanley is a real reach, in my view.”

    Yes, it is leaps like that that don’t do Mathis good. It might be he has more data that he doesn’t share, or really thinks such jumps are always 100% water tight or simply doesn’t care it’s sloppy. Which in the last case also helps to explain his “impossible” [Alan] production. He has more typos and missing words in his papers that I have seen.


  40. Miles did not catch that Richard Starkey is Ringo’s given name , I did .
    Miles did not connect Ringo’s geni with John Lennon or these two to Gates , I suggested it .
    Miles adds the names Starkey and Stanley to his Bill Gates geni connections .
    along with many other names . But he does not mention Ringo/Lennon .


    1. Good catch, Mr. Dave. It could be either a sign MM’s only human (like the Billy Joel song, “Second Wind”) or if not human error… it is just he knows most his readers are stupid. It even could just be he is just tired, his papers from last 12 months or so lack some rigor (meaning thoroughness, precision) and seriousness sometimes. Not a bad thing, everybody needs a vacation once in a while. We need to see by ourselves that behind the curtain it is pitch black darkness, so what do we do in the dark? Are we going to use our eyes to discover the truth? That is insanity. What did all of us feel back in April when he was offline for about 3 days? Note the number. The more minds we put to the task we will produce better results. I cannot commit full-time. I am not off-the-grid nor retired yet. I still live in the Matrix with a job, bills and rent to pay as most do. No can do at the time. But I’m watching you, sometimes as a mythical flaneur, a la Baudelaire, sometimes as a purposeful participant. It is entertaining.


    2. It’s in there now.
      By the way, Richard Starkey is the real name of Ringo Starr. This links Ringo to the Stanleys. John Lennon’s mother was a Stanley, as we know. And I have previously linked the Macartneys to the Stanleys as well. So you can place your be now on George Harrison being also linked to the stanleys.


      1. Hello Kevin,

        I know you do great work on geneology. I am sure you are aware of this page but it shows Gates and everyone else related through the Stanley’s.

        I am not sure if Miles is aware of the site ir if it is accurate. Also wonder for those good at math what is the perecntage of total population that has this many famous people related to each other and that is only through one of Gates lines. I think Miles is correct that if you pull apart multiple lines in Gates tree it will be a who’s who’s in power, entertainment today. The chances of of it being random luck that so many in his line are powerful are next to zero which shows a small group of families across centuries and countries have colluded together to enslave the rest of us.

        Happy Thanksgiving and thanks everyone for all your work. Have to say at times it can be depressing.


        1. Thanks, MSWINKLE. I’m aware of that site but don’t use it for research since I like to make my discoveries and do my own cross-referencing. Looking at the list though, I do not doubt that it is correct and could be much longer.

          a small group of families across centuries and countries have colluded together to enslave the rest of us
          That’s it in a nutshell. Everything else is just frosting. And yes it is depressing and alienating, but also liberating. Now that you know you’ll just have to deal with it. There’s no turning back, believe me, I’ve tried.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. One thing to note about the site I listed is the way it shows all the people connected to Gates. EG, GHB, 8th cousin, GWB, 9th cousin etc. It is quite clever as the message to the masses is clear. Yes Gates is connected to tons of powerful people, but look how distant the connection is. They don’t want the masses to make the conection that a small group spawned most of the people in power – political, corporate, hollywood – today.

            Growing up in the Uk, I was always aware of the establishment and how they kept and controlled power and in latter years I became aware of so much more especially after 9/11. So, reading Vexman’s ‘Business As Usual,’ is for the most part information I am deeply aware of. However, having it all laid out, thank you Vexman!!, in one paper combined with all the other knowledge just makes me think how f@@@@cked we truly are. You realize there is nothing they will not do. – mass genocide, disease, destruction of the mind and soul, destruction of the family, fake debt, fake money,etc, etc. In the UK you can visit estates they built back in the 15th century. It is mind boggling the opulance they lived in at a time when most were lucky to have a hut. Enough is never enough for them. They have the UK taxpayer, through the National Trust, paying for the upkeep of these homes. It as sold as a wonderful thing to preserve our heritage (whose heritage), but in reality many of the ‘owners’ maintain ownership and use of the estates, and the taxpayers pay the upkeep and get to visit (for a fee!) limited areas of the estate.

            Anyway, when I say at times I find it depressing, how can it not be? Aside from the lives and families destroyed, dreams never realized, destinies manipulated etc, even if you are fortunate not to be killed, still so much has been taken. Years, and years wasted at school learning lie upon lie upon lie. How many of us look at young kids and see how keen they are to learn, to explore, to create. Believe me, I always knew the system was designed to crush that ‘spark’, but I never realized how truly evil and twisted it was – teaching us and making us memorize and take tests on how well we learned their lies. It is so sick, so depraved.

            Yes, knowing all this can also be liberating, but it is just one of many thoughts,and emotions. When it is all said and done most of us still have to get up every day make a buck in their system, pay for their system, all while knowing that the entire systems is built on lies, fear, scarcity, and monetary entrapment, and the majority of our family, friends, collegues, etc have no idea, NONE.

            Sorry for the rant😀😀😀


        2. I met Bill Gates in my town at a downtown night spot over a decade ago. That couldn’t have been him I thought, yet he said his name was Bill and did look like him. There was a birthday party there for someone with the last name of Gibbs. I assume they are in the Gates family line? Just odd he was there.


          1. My daughter worked summers at a local drive-in burger establishment (Bellevue, WA). Bill Gates (or whoever he is), frequents this place, and has been there a couple of times when she was working.
            Weird to think about ol’ Bill just wanting a greasy burger and mingling with the masses, but there you go.


        3. Thanks for posting this link MSW. I had to laugh at the spectacle of America’s original lone nut, Lee Harvey Oswald, and his 27 documented generations going back to the year 1100 AD/CE. Traditionally, lone nuts are pictured something like having a trailer trash upbringing and are illegitimate with the guardian listed as a spinster aunt.


    3. Mr. Dave: I also sincerely believe that if you let Mr. Mathis know about the omission he will dutifully correct the paper. I have sent him some additions in the past and he has incorporated some of them in his papers. The latest one, the one about Ol’ Ben.


  41. I have sent a full 32 page paper to Miles and he didnt even care to respond. Well, such is life I guess. Still glad I did the research for mu own learning.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. I don’t criticize Miles because he didn’t respond (don’t even now if he “rejected” me, I just have no idea). I am largely positive about his work, just like about your and Josh’s guest papers.

        My points I have given, no need to repeat them. But if it’s somehow not allowed to disagree with other researchers, it becomes some kind of cult, which I see as unhealthy. CluesForum suffers from that, unfortunately. And still that doesn’t mean I skip them; there are sharp researchers there too.

        I disagree with some of Marks work and he with some of my comments, that is just natural, there will never ever be 100% agreement 100% of the time.


    1. If it’s something you really care about, I would advise to insist. If there is one trait of the rulers I have learned after years and years of reading history and researching for the innards of the Matrix is this: Don’t take “NO” for an answer. If MM replies to say 20% of your emails consider it good enough and keep going with your research. My 0.02.


    2. Gaia, I have had numerous e-mails sent to Miles blocked. It was especially true when the e-mail had attachments. And likewise I have failed to receive e-mails he has sent to me. And until he switched to protonmail, his e-mails would always go straight to my spam folder, even though I always marked him as non-spam. Vexman now shares the same honor.

      Anyway, what I want to say is that there is a good chance that your e-mail never reached him. If you are still keen, I suggest you send him an e-mail informing him that you’ve written the paper, what it’s about, and ask him if he’d be interested in seeing it or publishing it on his site. Then if he answers in the affirmative, send it to him. And as always, keep the e-mail short and to the point.

      By the way, if I may ask, what is the paper about?


      1. I think I found the problem, the file was 14 Mb. But my email didn’t give an error, so I think the email had reached him, just not the attachment.

        It’s about connected faked deaths and some more topics in one paper. Sent it to Mark now, let’s see what he thinks of it.

        Maybe a post here? Then anyone is free to send Miles Mathis the link, but I think he never looks into links provided. Ok, then not. I am not looking for the largest stage (Miles’ website is pretty well read, I think) to share my research with, if nobody is interested, I am not harmed in any way. The learning is enough and if other people like it, nice. If not, then not. I think “pushing for truth” is pushing people away.


        1. Miles gets right of first refusal since you submitted it to him first. I look forward to reading it tomorrow morning*. But FYI, I have no problem publishing stuff done by others, in fact, wish that we could attract more of that.

          *We are in the same time zone temporarily, but I get up ridiculously early, like 3:30 or 4:00 am, so I will probably have read it by the time you awake.


        2. The size might have been the problem, for sure. But let me be clear: even e-mails I have sent him with no attachments and small attachments have been blocked. Same with e-mails he has sent me. It’s deliberate. They are monitoring his e-mail traffic and occasionally screwing with it. He didn’t just up and change e-mail addresses on a whim.


          1. I concur. I would frequently get “undeliverable-retrying” messages. I would then accuse Miles of blocking me (using an alternative account) only to have him respond with, “What are you talking about?”


          2. I meant to say “alternate,” since my other email account didn’t have a “lifestyle.”

            Speaking of lifestyle now seems like an appropriate time for me to “come clean” and make an admission. Since I was born in 1962, I am frequently called a “Baby Boomer.” Society can label me but I’m here to say that I don’t “identify” as a Baby Boomer. I’m “Trans-Gener” and proud of it. Hello, world. I’m Gen-X…deal with it.

            Does this mean I can now use the ladies restroom? Probably not.

            Liked by 1 person

  42. Gaia, I’d like to look at the paper, if you don’t mind. Miles has, I think sometimes, a touch of Aspergers (need an emoticon here), and so does not bother with the human relations aspects of things.

    When I first submitted to him my paper on the Paul McCartney twins, he rejected it, and said he just could not use it in the state it was in. I did not get hurt feelings, as it was my first attempt at a big project.


    1. Right thanks Mark. Tonight will send it to you in the same version as I did to MM.

      The thing is that I am some kind of perfectionist in fixed texts. I am used to forums where you can edit your posts but on blogs and fixed texts that option is not there.

      But will send it to you as it is, thank you for taking a critical eye at it (that’s also what I liked about forums, the discussion afterwards, even though most people are not really critical, but still).

      Now moving here to another paradise location in the Andes, so just mobile access…


  43. Funny thing, my screen saver (Microsoft-supplied) is Machu Picchu today. If you are in that neighborhood … breathtaking to come up the back way over the Inca Trail and wait for the clouds to lift at the Sun Gate. It was a moving experience.


    1. I’d love to go there, haven’t been yet, must indeed be breathtaking.

      I had a funny experience on the back of the motor with the guy that took me to my new apartment again with an amazing view. It started with the question “where have you been in the US?” I said “not much, Denver, Dallas and Houston”. Then my driver said “Houston, oh NASA”, which opened the door for “ehh, let’s talk about that in more detail, you know it’s all fake right?” So he started laughing. And I explained 1 basic argument against the Apollo Moon “landings” and he immediately agreed; “Yeah, hahaha, crazy, lots of BS they are telling us.”

      Wow, just a normal random encounter and within 1 minute already convinced another human on this planet of the ridiculous fakery of history, it was so funny.


      1. We don’t get to know much, and people are really dumbed down now, maybe then too, but I have read that there was as much as 30% of the public that did not buy the moon landings. Problem is, “I have read,” which means that the information was allowed to be disseminated


        1. That topic was my “awakening”, my “in” and I actually dived deep into that rabbit hole, with many new arguments not covered by others (closest is Jarrah White who did lovely experiments even, but he believes in low Earth orbit space travel, I don’t). I have broken it down in easy-to-grasp simple arguments for the lower class of society laymen (like this guy of today), which means I am able to talk on their level of understanding.

          What I ‘ve seen is that people are very to fairly easily convinced of the fakery, no matter the age. And lower class, less-“””educated””” people are easier and more skeptical of “authority” by nature. My favorite moment was a one hour discussion with an astrophysicist (mind you!) in his late 70s who wrote books about plasmas and I don’t know what more, really high level “scientist”.

          He replied after one hour where I laid down my thesis that space travel is and always will be impossible; “I don’t have any scientific arguments against your thesis”.

          I thanked him a lot for that experience, it was truly amazing.

          Like you say, we never know if those numbers can be trusted, but I wouldn’t be surprised that number is about right. It’s a pity people don’t take that skepticism further and apply it to the other hoaxes we see today. I think you wouldn’t get 30% disbelief in the Vegas hoax or Holocaust Story hoax if you ask the same people…


  44. I think he just did not notice the name Richard Starkey as also
    Ringos , Maybe not a huge Beatles fan .

    So I’m looking at Ana’s wiki page ( how does she allow anyone
    to post that photo of her )

    I clearly remember her interviewed and saying her
    father worked for the Dept. of State , that she went to
    the elementary private school with Amy Carter and they
    would play together at The White House and would try
    to get the Secret Service guys to play with them , that she
    and Amy were best friends .
    Now on Wiki her father is a lobbyist and no mention
    of Amy Carter . I see this info elsewhere though .


    1. Amy is wearing a wrist watch and eye glasses. There’s got to be metal in that watch. The glasses could be plastic though the screws are probably metal.


  45. Thanks Ty , I didn’t catch the watch , could be plastic though . glasses have the soft plastic nose
    protectors . What’s odd is no earrings or necklace , nothing her family gave her that she
    would wear . From what my friend said , the metal has to contact the skin and although not
    at first but his skin would get a rash that lasted a long time .

    What do you think of these ?
    Another example of : How the bloody flip do images like these get taken , approved and posted ?
    Can we ask Jenna how her knee got so dirty and why is her arm casting a shadow on the van in the background ?


    1. You guys missed that she went to a Quaker school. Sidwell Friends School is a highly selective Quaker school located in Bethesda, Md. and Washington D.C.
      Now apply the MM algorithm.


    2. Dave…If you zoom in on her knees they look like eyes. The one on the left looks eerily like the eye on the dollar bill. They are definitely messing with us.


  46. I had my doubts about Miles Mathis because of his scientific pages which seem to promote the relativity theory and many other aspects of the theoretical physics, which I consider to be totally fake. But he answered my few emails every time very politely and I like his philosophical thoughts and his perspective on the world we’re living in. What I would never thought that could happen is, that I recently realized the famous Cluesforum is totally fake, at least for the last few years. Simon Shack and Hoi Polloi seem to be the same person and many other “members” are just invented cartoon characters and Cluesforum is not a forum at all. It’s more like a cartoon storyboard where there is no discussion at all but a kind of cartoon dialogues all written by that Simon/Hoi entity himself. And they now went over to the flat earthers in a modified form. Simon announces for a couple of years (since 2013) some kind of revelation called SSSS where he promises to replace the Copernican model with his own research where the Earth is in the middle and the Sun is circling around the Earth. But it seems to be an empty promise so far. And it makes no sense anyway.


    1. Ah yeah and blood transfusions don’t exist, right?

      Simon and hoi are not the same person at all. I heard Simon’s voice and hoi.polloi’s voice and they are far from the same. Simon has a slight Italian accent in his English and hoi is clearly US American.

      Their writings are also completely different: a witty cheerful Simon versus a dull and uninteresting hoi.polloi.

      You can confirm that too. If you step out of the autist attic that is.


      1. Once one is beginning to wake up, there is a definitive danger to get lost in a PKD world, or in Lem’s Futurological Congress …


        1. Stanislaw Lem was a horrible writer. I never liked his sci-fi stories. I liked Aasimov and Vonnegut and many others but not LEM. He was made famous.


          1. My comment didn’t imply he was. Coincidentially, he belongs to tMM’s bankers-and-peerage group of people …

            He was made famous.
            Which one not ?


      2. the faces of Simon Hytten and Maxeem Konrardi are just faces given to the characters invented by a writer, or maybe several writers who are creating the Cluesforum. The same applies for voices. They use many different characters. The most of the dialogues there are not real dialogues. For instance “brianv” never contributes anything of value and is only bullying others. His comments usually make no sense at all. Yet still “he” was a few months ago priced as one of the most important contributors. I think the creators allow very few real members occasionally just to make them contribute on some topics and then they make them look foolish, like they are doing it now with NonRappaport. Then the members leave on their own disappointed or are being banned for nothing. I even tried to register a few times not only as me but also using other names I created only for this reason (with different emails, etc.) but my accounts never got activated. I also exchanged some emails with Simon over the time. The answers to my emails weren’t written by somebody who tries to understand the other person. Simon even used my two pictures of the ISS recently taking it out of context. Don’t get me wrong here. There is a lot of good stuff on the Cluesforum to read but its left there only to pretend credibility . I’m not alone here and this is not new. Just read what the former member “kentrail” wrote on letsrollforums a few years ago. I don’t think it is a real forum. Not anymore.


        1. I like visiting Clues Forum because so many members do serious digging for facts that I would never be able to budget the time to pursue. In exchange for their efforts, I do link the forum elsewhere to spread the word that there are intelligent people out there trying to understand just what the hell is going on.
          Both Simon and Hoi have mirrored comments I’ve made at Fakeologist, which surprised me because I’m more opinionated than forensically focused. Even so, I never thought to apply for membership as it takes a lot of work to contribute something up to their standards and risk a pit bull attack from Brian5. I prefer sites like POM and Fakeologist where opinions can be shared along with the detective work.
          Over at Let’s Roll Forum I follow Thunkerdrone- his Curt Cobain thread is one of the greatest deposits of ‘stuff’ I’ve ever seen. It seems that thread has run its course, but I may reread it soon. Its Proustian in scope and incorporates Mile’s work on Manson and others.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I cannot like your post, because no wordpress account, but I agree. There are a lot of good people and researchers at CluesForum, no doubt. Even people I disagree with (disagreement is only an encouragement to challenge each other). ICFreely comes to mind. CriticalMass has done great work but seems to be gone. So many others.

            My problems with CF are indeed those “pitbull attacks” by non-contributor brianv, the idea that everyone should agree (the cult) and the “authority” of that uninspirational hoi.polloi character.

            It is a good place, but it could be so much better.

            I like Fakeologist and especially the chat function. Which I only found through POM, so thanks guys!

            Liked by 2 people

  47. @Kevin, ah sorry, I thought you attended. So it was only bmseattle and Mark then.

    I agree with that transhumanism and AI and so is mostly fake, just like this transgender stuff. A series of psyops (fear-based mind control) meant to confuse and anger us, without actually having to do the work itself. Like space travel, nukes, etc.

    Why make it, if you can fake it?

    I can really recommend to check out Lenon Honor on Youtube, he is very good in taking those mind control psyops down. A bit lengthy, but his approach is very sober and broad:


  48. “To which extent is the particle physics or idea of quantum false in your opinion? Do we have sub atomic particles like electrons, protons and neutrons within the atomic structure or not? If not, can you link here to the source of such claim?”

    Quantum physics is pure fantasy. Nobody has ever seen those particles, it is an invention. Same for other sub-atomic particles, or even atoms. Nobody has ever seen them. Taking such a faulty “model” and use it in your papers, shows you don’t go back to the basis; empirical science, but step in half-way, using wrong foundations in the first place. Mathis doesn’t perform or publish repeatable experiments, yet takes the same magician’s route that provided the world with all that fault psience.

    Mathis’ own words:
    “Strictly, my unification is even broader than any previously attempted or imagined GUT’s. I have done things they didn’t even realize needed to be done. This is because, in order to unify, I saw that it was necessary to correct many longstanding basic equations that had become dogma. The housecleaning was even wider and deeper than anyone imagined, and all sorts of fortified towers have fallen. “

    He closes off with a played humility, but his stance is clear. He claims to have unified all his theories into a working model for quantum “physics” (it’s maths, and maths is just a language), gravity (a mystery) and electro-magnetics. But how? By “correcting basic equations”, but still using a set of completely magical “models”. Many others, especially at Fakeologist, accuse him of being a deliberate disinfo shill. I don’t think that, as said; I think he really believes what he writes. But in his “science” papers he misdirects people (you among others, no shame to admit that, I have been wrong so many times in the past, present and future) into false paths, paved on rainbows.


    1. Gaia, not only quantum physics, the entire theoretical physics is crap. The point is not to see the particles. Nobody ever saw atoms yet. Forget the fake scanning microscope pictures. Atoms proved useful many times. Huge parts of chemistry are based on it and it works as expected. Without seeing anything. The atomic model is only a model, but it allows practical predictions. You cannot derive any useful directives from quantum physics. Only speculations which are then used for further speculations. Miles Mathis does basically the same in his scientific papers. He uses his own speculations to match the speculations derived from the theoretical physics. For Instance his (in)famous Pi=4 paper. He uses the sides of a triangle to approximate the curve instead of the hypotenuse. This is a wrong assumption and he does it on purpose. Then he starts speculating even using NASA to justify it. Its no different to the flat earth stuff. And Simon Shack promises to prove, the Sun circulates the Earth. Same thing.


    2. Here we go again – with the term of “quantum” misused or misinterpreted. I’ve already explained to you in my previous comment what the definition of quantum is. In regard the term and its definition as-is, photon is a quantum particle and Mathis builds his theory on photon as the fundamental quantum particle. The choice of words to describe and define the smallest entities can be subject of some discussion, yet nothing seems to disprove the existence of those particles.

      We can’t see them with our naked eyes, yet it can be deduced and empirically proven that photons exist.Most obvious evidence of photons at work would be solar panels producing electricity when exposed to stream of light / photons. Or your retina reacting to light thus inducing observable reflex pupil size change. So obviously, we have some basic matter at work here. All these obvious things just mentioned here can be observed and repeated with the very same results, showing there are some particles around us that are not visible to the naked eyes. So it’s not about magic when we discuss protons, they are here regardless how we choose to name them. Same would apply to atoms – electrolyse of H2O (water) decomposes water as compound into hydrogen and oxygen, which can be easily shown. Although you can’t see for instance hydrogen with your naked eye, you can easily change its state aggregation to liquid and see it clearly materialize. Looking at the scale small enough, we can observe and notice different properties of individual elements. What Mathis did in terms of atoms, electrons, protons and neutrons, is that he retained the idea of atomic structure and further shown, by introduction of charged, “spinned” and stacked photons (+ charge channeling capacity, etc…), the process of creating chemical elements. Unique, ingenious and unheard of before – and the most important – it’s consistent with observable reality. So, by deduction we can come to firm conclusions about smallest ingredients without actually seeing them.

      The model you want to describe as faulty is nothing alike. The analogy would be to say that all theories about gravity are false, just because nobody is able to see gravity. Or EM waves – we can explain how they’re produced, yet nobody seems to have seen or caught the most basic “ingredient” of such phenomenon. Does it make EM waves a fantasy then? I really strongly disagree with the conclusion of your logic.

      To clarify, I don’t believe in “god’s particle” or gravitational waves, but not all is fake within the physics. For real alternative view of our physical reality, I’d recommend learning about Dewey B. Larson’s Reciprocal System of physical theory, a Theory of Everything that is based on the concept of motion, rather than matter. With only two, fundamental postulates, Larson was able to construct a theoretical universe based on just the inverse relation between space and time, that he called “motion.” (It has nothing to do with something moving–“motion” is just a ratio between space and time that causes change).


      1. Vexman, matter has to have some mass, therefore if light particles called photons were real they could be weigh. Nobody ever weighed light, as far as I know. We can produce a lot of light and we cannot weigh it? Come on. No mass= no particles=no matter=no speed. Yes Vexman, speed of light is also fake. Light does not have the attribute speed at all. It has range, intensity, color (frequency) but no speed. Our retina translates somehow frequencies into signals but we still don’t understand how. It has to do something with pressure. If you press your eyes with your thumbs in complete darkness you’ll see sparks. You can create all colors rotating a disc with only black and white segments. Etc. Light is a form of energy, similar to radio waves or electrical current. Radio waves have the same attributes as light waves. Waves don’t have the attribute speed. Matter based waves as water waves need some time to spread but then they don’t move. They only swing. A swimming object won’t change its position on a water wave without currents or winds.Light wave is not matter bound it therefore does not need time to spread. Well maybe there is ether or something like that and light spreads on it and maybe it also takes some time but it is not what we call light speed. The swimming object does not have any speed at all without winds or currents. It can only swing with the wave. And I’m sure many scientist know that.


        1. Photon does have a mass, it’s exactly 2.77 x 10^-37 kg, or an energy of 2.5 x 10^-20 J, which is a frequency of 3.77 x 10^13/s, which is an infrared photon. From here: . You have at least three huge problems in real scenario to weigh a single photon: your scale being inadequate to perform weighing of such minimal value, photons can’t slow down from speed of light and even if you could “freeze” a photon, it would need to get emitted as the only photon from some special device. My imagination is not good enough to imagine such experiment, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible or anything alike.

          Photon (and light consequently) definitely has an attribute of speed and light needs time to cover any distance over space, as much as anything else set in motion. It doesn’t propagate itself over distance instantly with some magic, but it conforms to the laws of observable reality. Before the 17th century, it was generally thought that light is transmitted instantaneously and it was supported with a logical observed idea. Do you have any idea that supports your definition of light without speed attribute? How do you imagine it physically possible? No, light is not a wave, light consists of particles.


          1. Vexman, light definitive has a frequency, which makes it a wave. If photons were real, light would have weigh something. No need to weigh a single photon. Take as many as you want. Sun delivers lots of them every day. Constant speed does not exist in nature. Speed comes mathematically as the integral of acceleration. Only a mass can be accelerated. The problem with the speed of light is, it is so huge, we cannot really compare it to anything else we observe in reality. All methods of measurement of the speed of light are not measuring speed. They show inaccuracy of the setup, but not the speed of anything. All laser based rangefinders use triangulation.


          2. I will add to this that Miles has shown that mass is reducible to motion.


            “Conclusion: I have shown that mass is really a function of motion, like everything else. My analysis implies that we must give the shell of the proton an impenetrability, yes, but other than that mass is just motion. Mathematically, mass can be calculated straight from rectilinear motion. This is a great improvement on current theory, since it reduces the mass variable to distance and time. It is also much preferable to all the talk we hear of bosons. We don’t need a reductio like the boson to explain mass, we just need a bit of clear thinking. ”

            And that in his theory light is made of particles (photons) that move in a wave-like manner:

            This is what gives rise to the apparent duality of light (and it is important to note that that duality is only apparent.) This is what makes light “waves” different from, say, sound waves or waves in an ocean. Those waves move through a medium. But light waves are just particles tracing out a wave-like movement as they travel through the vacuum. The problem was that physicists applied the existing math of waves to the waves of light, without stopping to ask if light waves were essentially different.


    3. Gaia, since you and B Mueller apparently have never read Miles’s physics work, you should really just keep quiet about it because your ignorance is fully apparent to all those who have, and for those who haven’t your opinions amount to disinformation.

      Miles’s work on special and general relativity and his understanding of it are very different from Einstein’s. And by the way, Einstein was not the only one working on those issues in his day. As far as I can tell, the only postulate they share is that the speed of light is finite. You can only call Miles’s work on relativity “magic” if you deny that the speed of light is finite. Do you deny that? If not, then Miles’s work on relativity follows clearly and logically from that postulate, which is actually an empirically verifiable and verified fact. Unlike with Einstein and the way his work on relativity has been interpreted since, there is no hocus pocus with Miles.

      Similar to his work on what you call quantum physics. He rejects the existence of quarks, the strong force, the weak force, etc. etc. Yes he talks about photons, but his photon is very different from the photon of contemporary physics. He has completely burned and spurned QED and QCD and railed at length against the mystification and mathematisization of physics. So to lump him in with quantum mechanics is not to the point at all.

      As for space travel, well, your argument against it hinges on your conclusion that rocketry doesn’t work in a vacuum. You have a novel argument for that. You could share it with him to see what his answer is. In any case none of his arguments hinge on the existence or possibility of space travel, though he does sometimes refer to data that was allegedly gleaned from satellites and space probes. If he came to accept your argument and retract those mentions, it would change exactly 0% of his theory. So, no, he hasn’t gone down any dead-end tunnels that he can’t turn back from.

      I do not intend to get dragged into another pointless debate with you on these issues, but I did want to state for the record that you and B Mueller are too ignorant about his theories to realize how wrong you are about them. You should make an effort to understand that which you criticize.


      1. Josh you sound like a priest claiming, that if I did not study the bible closely I should not have an opinion about God. I read many of Miles scientific papers and since he nowhere states the obvious: that the RT makes no sense in itself, he is just supporting it with his alternative view. It’s like the disputes between Catholics and Protestants. I wrote my arguments against it above. You have any answers? Do you believe in light speed and relativity of time equality which is the main consequence of the RT? Don’t get me wrong here. I like Miles non scientific papers a lot. I exchanged some emails with him and he was always very polite and seem to be a nice person as such. All I’m criticizing here are his scientific views regarding theoretical physics which I consider to be totally fake.


      2. Josh, I can tell you what I think of rocketry in space. There is none. Satellites are just mechanical objects shot into certain altitudes like bullets where they start orbiting automatically. They don’t need engines. They get replaced when they fail. All analysis if rocketry can work in vacuum is based on wrong premises. The vacuum in space is not the same than artificial vacuum created here where just the air has been removed from a container. The vacuum in space exists because of natural conditions like low temperature, absence of matter, etc. Here you have to fight against outer pressure, there you have to fight against inner pressure. That’s totally different.


  49. I assume that according to Mathis’ theory, there should be a lot of charge around the area where the satellites are supposed to orbit. There is the possibility that ion thrusters work in that area. At the same time I would assume that the charge would mess up the electronics of the satellites without proper shielding. So I would assume these satellites would be very simple contraptions since they need a lot of shielding. Even on cluesforum there is a guy called Notrappaport, that believes ISS can be a simple contraption. Thus the charge would make these contraption impractical even for transmitting simple signals. Maybe people that studied Mathis in more detail can add a few more thoughts regarding the charge around the Earth.

    Regarding Mathis’ theories in general, there are probably a few areas where he trusted the official numbers too much. Nonetheless, he criticized many experiments and showed how they fudged the numbers. He pointed out experiments where the measurements required were too precise for the instruments available (like the Schiehallion experiment). At the same time he showed that some experiments had greater error than expected (like Millikan oil drop). Some of the famous experiments are probably dubious, especially the big particle physics experiments and gravitation waves (but Mathis actually exposed many of these experiments). Nonetheless, there are probably a few relatively simple experiments that can test some of his hypothesis (for example an experiment related to the double slit experiment where he made additional predictions).


  50. Josh and Vexman, I don’t know why you sound so upset with other people not jumping on the MM “science train”. I have read some papers of him about it and have outlined my criticism against it.

    I am in a funny position now; defending his hoax papers on Fakeologist, where MM is viewed with a very critical eye, because of his faulty “science” stuff. Mainly Kham, who is a math teacher, about this pi=4 crap. She takes it a step further and questions his hoax papers because of his faulty science. A kind of DBA in my opinion.

    But now when you talk about “photons” (also something fantastical; nobody has ever seen one), I recognize the same problem as with this pi=4 idea: “just use the same term but redefine its meaning”. That smells of misdirection. Why not invent a new term that exactly describes what you mean? Language is ours.

    Satellites cannot possibly exist. If space travel is impossible (and the rockets in “vacuum” point is just one factor of it, and it can’t using the same mainstream models against the space travel claimants, then satellites are also impossible.

    There was an excellent video on YT of the first satellites and how they worked. Unfortunately taken down. If I recall well it wss from 1955 or so and they explained that the satellite reflects signals to send them to a receiver across the globe. But the thing is, that “reflective satellite” is completely unnecessary; radio signals have been sent over large distances simply by bouncing them off the ionosphere. So that can be done with real-time “satellite” data too (GPS, phone, TV, etc.). What NASA fanboys and -shills online claim is that the frequency of those radio waves is much lower than of “satellite” data. But frequency converters are easy to install in between…

    Now, if Mathis doesn’t do the same thorough job he does with the hoaxes of his-story, yet takes space travel for granted and bases a whole section of his research on that idea, the question arises; why? Why not step back from this whole science rabbit trail, where he stepped in half-way, using complete magic and just rearrange the maths, not questioning and/or enpirically testing the whole basis of it, and admit that you went on a dead-end? Of course when you have published books and spent 100s of 1000s of hours on that trail, it takes a pretty strong character and lack of ego to admit you “lost” years of your life chasing unicorns.

    That is why I choose to stick to his hoax papers and leave the science aside. And B. Müller and I disagree on many points, but here I agree with her position completely.

    The question is however, why do you two get so personal and frustrated? Is it a cult, a religion, the Miles Mathis thing? Do we have to embrace everything “the guru” says? Or is it, like mature humans interact, possible to agree on some and disagree on other points?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Mr. Mathis ignores debating in a forum his science stuff. Can’t blame him for ignoring those forums and discussions. So I suggest all commenters pro/against MM’s science papers do the same. He may even be moving onto other topics/interests since the count of the Annual Conference stopped at 4 (last year one), don’t care he can do whatever he wants, as we all do. I am not familiar with all his science papers (just a handful that really interested me but they were more Mathematics oriented that Theo Physics and have no problem with what I consumed, take the good stuff).
      What I am curious about are the publish date of the paper Gaia sent to Mark T. to be published in POM and what the writers of this forum made of that classy John Le Bon invitation from a month ago.


      1. This huge comment section is pretty interesting. More startling due to the fact that is held on a blog the center of discussion broke artificial links a while ago. We can clearly see ones that hold on to the idea of what they imagine MM to be (virtuous, with integrity, rebel, man on a mission, genius, etc). Others try to get trough the veil and get to what they imagine MM is not.

        “All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts…”


      2. Gaia, what I read in your texts lately is progressive skepticism taking over your rational thought. Think about that for a minute before committing yourself further to the same.

        You think I sound upset, so let me tell you who or what really upsets me the most. It’s people who engage in each conversation believing they’ve mastered the knowledge of reality around us, know almost everything important, enjoy in philosophizing about the reality to the point, where they start asking themselves about the famous dilemma hidden within “Cogito, ergo sum”, as if that was actually the only thought that can survive the test of methodic doubt. That’s why such people sound like a methodist church priests and I can hardly stomach anything alike, which brings about my deepest frustrations. Why? I could have easily avoided you or any methodists, right? I should’ve actually ignored you as my experience from another forum gave me enough reasons to abandon any future discussion with you. We are light years apart and I can’t learn anything from our exchange of ideas. But over here at PoM, there are many people who may be reading your false ideas being pushed about anybody’s physics theory and I feel obligated to defend the work of Mathis as he deserves much more than your superficial attention and blackwashing. I regret Mark can’t or won’t jump in this discussion, as he feels incompetent or not knowledgeable enough about physics, which is another reason why I try to defend anybody’s reason from nihilistic people’s thoughts.

        Another upsetting issue would be your slick and successful attempts to answer anything relevant from my comments in scientific matter, while boasting about the fact you’ve never read or understood Mathis’ physics body of work. You think you’ve read enough of it to understand it or make your opinion about it, which is factually and philosophically true. But only to the point, where you fail to realize you’ve made wrong conclusions and keep pushing them to anybody listening as true. This would be the consequence of your skeptic doubt not letting you grasp the essence. Zeno’s paradox of divisibility doesn’t “allow” one to touch an object if he chooses to get in physical contact by halving the distance between him and the object. But at one point you need to realize that the limits of your abilities are not only laws of physics, but your mind setting the limits itself.

        So, apparently, my frustration in all this is not at all science related, but purely personal with you. I hope you can understand the difference. There is no cult thing behind the progress of science and thought. And I can prove it to you whenever you’ll be ready for a scientific debate, here or anywhere else.


        1. Vexman, what makes you think, you understood Mathis’ (or Einsteins or somebody else theories)? I know people convinced they understand the relativity theory. I also know people convinced they understand the divine trinity. It’s easy to say, you understand something. Can you prove it? In school you have to answer teachers questions but it only proves you memorized the stuff. A theory is an assumption. Without empiric verification it is worthless. What empiric facts can you offer as proof for the correctness of for instance the “Pi=4” theory? Just don’t come with the weird, obscure youtube videos. Even simple mathematics can invalidate that Pi=4. I gave other examples here of how Mathis is misleading in his scientific papers. What’s your stand on it?


          1. Sure, now that I’ve criticized Mathisian criticism suggesting we’re mislead by magic, you’re going to demand an answer from me. Who said I understood Mathis or Einstein’s relativity theory? I’ve said and will repeat here – give proper substance to criticism of anything, arguments and supportive links to other research work, proper examples and coherent logic. Then we can exchange ideas about what is right and wrong in any theory. Feelings and opinions can’t be a part of such debate or we’ll be spending time on issues that aren’t to related to the core issue.

            Yes, for instance I can prove you’re purposely misleading when omitting kinematic situations are the reason behind Pi=4 definition. We’ve already argued about the need for proper naming of this factual, observable reality, with purpose not to confuse it with the term “Pi”, which was agreed to be the ratio of circle’s circumference to its diameter. Why are you then trying to distort what Mathis states about Pi=4 in kinematic situations? Why don’t you say Mathis himself doesn’t deny static ratio known as Pi? Why tell only half- truth about it?

            How can I prove Pi=4 in kinematic situation? You can do it yourself: go to any athletic track that has a circular portion of the track, mark the beginning of measurement, then take a piece of a cord long enough and go for one full circle, then measure the length of that cord. Compare the measured length with the calculated value using Pi=3,14… et voilá, 21% difference will be there. I’ll not link to any obscure video, just to a simple gif animation showing cycloid and its implication. Cycloid is the locus of points traced out by a point on a circle, which rolls without slipping along a straight line. , just press “start” under the first option and watch it roll for one full rotation. The length of cycloid arc is 8R, and not 2RPi as it could be concluded by the equation for circle’s circumference the traced point is actually following. See? Nothing strange or obscure is hidden there, it just depends if you’re willing to observe the true path and correct your reasoning. I have already done so.

            I’ll comment only on one of your examples, the satellites. You’ve said they’re “just mechanical objects shot into certain altitudes like bullets where they start orbiting automatically. They don’t need engines. They get replaced when they fail”. I believe you’re wrong and have a reason to claim so. Since you believe satellites are real and need to be carried to sufficient distance above the Earth’s surface, we can both assume atmosphere is real and reaches certain altitude. So, looking at Wikipedia’s entry on atmosphere, it explains that “depending on solar activity, satellites can experience noticeable atmospheric drag at altitudes as high as 700–800 km.” and “they encounter enough atmospheric drag to require reboosts every few months”. So, you suggest satellites are real, have no engines to compensate for atmospheric drag and are therefore falling from the sky on possibly inhabited area? And nobody noticed not even one falling satellite so far? I really doubt any of it. They either have inbuilt reboost possibility or they’re not up there. Since you’ve photographed them yourself, you’re apparently wrong about how they manage to stay in their orbit over time.

            Liked by 2 people

    2. I am not upset at people who don’t jump on the MM science train. I am upset by people such as yourself who appear to be deliberately misrepresenting that work and dismissing it on false grounds with no substantive argument. You may not be deliberately doing that, but if so then the way you express your opinions in a way that is indistinguishable from that. You say you’ve read some of his papers, but if you’ve read his papers on relativity, you would know that his version of relativity is very different from Einstein’s. The fact that you don’t know that yet still dismiss it annoys the bejesus out of me and makes me very suspicious of your intentions. The fact that you just repeated a bunch of things I said were simply not true, like saying that “bases a whole section of his research” on space travel, only adds to my dislike and suspicion.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. So answering a post where I recognized your frustration with more frustration. QED. 😀

        It is irrelevant that “MM’s relativity” =/= “Einstein’s relativity”. It is the whole idea of that relativity that is my problem. And so for many more theoretical “physics” things he takes in and turns around.

        Why not just leave all that magic for what it is? Ah yeah, he created a cult of followers who get frustrated other people do not like to read the massive books he wrote about them.

        I have read his science stuff just like I read the so-called “holy” Quran. And read enough to be able to conclude both are bogus misdirections.

        Fair enough, there’s enough to learn from his hoax work.



        1. Gaia…

          To read the Quran is to study Arabic and the imagery behind the language.. You have picked up an English version of an attempt at the meaning.. You got bored within a few pages and gave up.. You lack shame! Shame is a valuable tool..


          1. Gaia is right, if the premises are wrong, the conclusions must also be wrong. Why wasting time? This is not the same than reading novels. Not all of MM scientific papers are that bad. I liked his rainbow paper for instance. He just keeps promoting the theoretical physics which IMO is a literary invention and not based on reality. It makes me wonder why.


          2. No, I didn’t get “bored”. I saw the sickness for what it was, by seeing how it is written. A law book, and clearly meant to steer the people in… submission.

            I don’t need to “study Arabic”, I care for my throat, thank you.

            If you find “wisdom” in that law book, good for you. But I wonder about your standards then.


      2. Josh, the relativity theory is about relativity of time equality and it is absurd in itself. Miles is there not much different to Einstein. He even uses the same equations only drawing different conclusions. You say tomato i say tomahto. He takes on a problem of the official science and gives his solution to the problem which only supports the official science. And he constantly makes numbers out of thin air. For instance what he calls ” Moon’s centripetal acceleration” relates to the so called sidereal month, which can be easily observed and so demonstrated. It is not 22 days, its 27.3 days . Or he writes “in my quantum spin equations I am able to explain why the proton is 1822 times as large as the electron. But the math only works if pi=4” The number 1822 is wrong. It’s actually 1836: 1.67E-27(proton) / 9.11E-31 (electron) or 1838 (neutron/electron) I took the masses from German Wikipedia pages.
        And you still sound like a religious fanatic: death to the unbelievers and such…


        1. I’m not learned enough in physics to engage in debate, but I did find this interesting and informative book online, “The Fraud of Physics”:

          “This lack of comprehension of Relativity theory is not uncommon
          among physicists and astronomers…I’ve found
          few scientists willing to admit to an indepth understanding of
          the theory, yet most of them will argue of their belief in it. I
          have also discovered that even the scientists that are willing to
          admit to full comprehension of the theory, have serious gaps in
          their knowledge of it….in our time it is heresy to argue that there
          is evidence that the speed of light in space is not constant for all observers,
          no matter how fast they are moving, as predicted by Prof. Albert Einstein’s
          sacred 1905 Special Relativity Theory. The heresies change, but
          as you will find from reading this book, human nature remains the

          (Einstein) believes that the sea of ether exists, but he also believes that it cannot be detected by experiments, in other words, he believes it is invisible. The situation in modern physics is very much like the Hans Christian
          Andersen tale of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, with Einstein playing the
          part of the Emperor.

          At the end of section 2 of his article on the foundations of the general theory, Einstein writes: “The principle of the constancy of the vacuum speed of light requires a modification.” At the time, Max Abraham took Einstein to task (in a rather unfriendly manner) about this deviation from his earlier stance.

          Einstein’s special relativity theory with his second postulate that the
          speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds
          the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter
          this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!

          So now we find that the legend of Albert Einstein as the
          world’s greatest scientist was based on the Mathematical Magic of
          Trimming and Cooking of the eclipse data to present the illusion
          that Einstein’s general relativity theory was correct in order to
          prevent Cambridge University from being disgraced because one of
          its distinguished members was close to being declared a
          “conscientious objector”!”

          The author of the above begins his book with this: “For the past 50 years most of the scientific research has been funded by the federal government,
          and the number of Ph.D. scientists working in the U.S. has far outstripped the growth of the population as a whole.” So, it seems to me that this new religion of Scientism and theoretical physics is something created to replace old-time religion, as it depends on faith and “thought-experiments”, and damns all heretics who don’t agree with the prevailing consensus. Think “global warming” and the “97% of scientists” who agree, while the naysayers are condemned as idiots–heretics. It also exists to create jobs, confiscate wealth from philanthropic donors and taxes from the commoners–think university “chairs” and new schools, NASA, CERN, CDC and pharmaceuticals, etc.–perhaps even money-laundering is involved, just as MM tells us the art industry exists for–and, of course, to cause further confusion and misdirection. (But, no worries–Scientism will save mankind…as long as it continues to be well-funded, of course.)

          If you take into consideration that Einstein was used to promote the ideas that Jews are superior in intelligence, along with the Zionist agenda that the Jews should be given their own homeland (his rise to prominence came just after the Balfour declaration), perhaps it’s all just part of another project? I think the answer is obvious…at least it is in my (conspiracy-oriented) mind.

          Liked by 1 person

    3. Gaia, the ionosphere only reflects radio signals in a very small range of frequencies called long waves. I watched satellite TV in the 80-s using a dish which had to be pointed exactly to a certain point in space. There wasn’t any transmitter towers back then and it was in the Eastern Germany. You can also photograph the geostationary satellites quite easily on a dark clean night. Just point the camera on a tripod in the direction the dishes in your neighborhood are oriented using long time exposure and you will get stars as lines and satellites as dots. I did that. Or you can also photograph the ISS, which is on a 400km altitude. I did that to using my sons Coolpix P900 camera. Simon Shack presented my pictures on the ISS thread on cluesforum and the member NotRappaport explained very clearly many details. Satellites exists. Then there is our Moon or the moons of Jupiter, which you can watch orbiting (they visibly change positions within hours) and you can even see their shadows on Jupiter.


      1. You would never be able to see or photograph geostationary satellites which are supposed to be some 22,300 miles away. You also would be unable to really photograph an orbiting ISS at some 249 mile through some 50 miles of atmosphere as you claim. A high flying passenger jet at some 7 miles or so easily shows us why photos of the ISS are fake. The thing would be moving too fast to photograph, at the very least you would have a blur instead of a focused fake station, assuming one would capture the image in the first place. The official observation times for the ISS sitings are not logically consistent and also give the game away. ISS and all man made satellites are Cold War era relics and nothing more.

        Common sense and real work optics easily explain why you are fibbing. Images of ISS are a hoax. Newtonian orbits are not real and Newton admits he had no hypothesis for his mathematical musings. No human being has ever really sent anything 249 miles up into the sky.

        Photos have been faked for as long as there has been photography. The numerous on line ISS photos are obvious artifacts of those who insist on pushing obvious fantasy as Military prowess based reality. Satellites are as fake as nukes. All large rockets and missiles are obvious Hollywood props like the ISS and all artificial satellites. Nothing about the space program is very believable and radio signals can be bounced off of the layers of ionized atmospheric gases, this is easily researched and confirmed, as is how radio works which also gives us clues as to the fakery. None of the claims of NASA live up to scrutiny, well that is not entirely true, TANG is real enough…

        Modern space science is based on a whole lot of nonsense and hot air.

        Liked by 2 people

  51. I think the people that just want to be proved right by far outnumber the people that want to know here on this forum.


  52. As more evidence (per my previous comment) that Einstein and his plagiarized theory of relativity were the beginnings of a major project in science to reduce and replace objective truth with sophistry and subjective reality–to introduce “fuzzy math” and the “fuzzy logic” required to believe it–check out this heavily-researched tome. I also find it quite telling that Einstein first came to America–with much fanfare after being extensively hyped in the media as a hero–with Chaim Weizmann, leader of the Zionist movement, and (obviously) Einstein’s handler. Weizmann says that Einstein is “…more of an intuitive physicist…not an experimental physicist, and although he is able to detect fallacies in the conceptions of physical science, he must turn his general outlines of theory over to some one else to work out.” Einstein himself stated that he is more of a philosopher than a physicist.

    Isn’t it interesting that MM has never outed Einstein as a valuable “spook”? Maybe because the project is still in process to this very day, and coming along quite well?

    If you want to skip the sociopolitical and antisemitism agenda that Einstein was part of, the science/math starts over halfway through the book.

    Click to access TheManufactureAndSaleOfSaintEinstein.pdf


  53. Vexman, I know satellites exists because I’ve seen them I told you a few examples. What is it up there if not satellites? What can fly on a 400km altitude? What are the dots lined on the geostationary orbit? Natural satellites like moons exists and were observed since ancient times. Now we have some man made satellites too. The atmosphere ends on some altitude and then there is nothing but vacuum. You can observe that too on the solar corona. It’s the second rainbow ring. Mathis wrote about it too. Above this line there is no relevant friction anymore. There is no such thing as atmospheric drag. An object will start orbiting automatically if it reaches this altitude with the required orbiting speed. That’s what I learned as kid in the 60-s and it was called cosmic speed. The first cosmic speed allows you to reach the first possible orbit. Now they don’t teach that anymore. Kinematic situation for the calculation of pi is irrelevant. Mathis used this to support his theory but it is a misdirection. If you run on a circular way you have to waste some energy for the centripetal force. The circle’s curve lies on the hypotenuse not on the sides of the triangle. The formula for the hypotenuse is known since Pythagoras. the more triangles you use to calculate their hypotenuses, the more exact you will calculate the PI number. Mathis used the sides of the triangle to calculate his PI and approximate the curve of the circle. This is absurd. He did it to make his numbers up. He does it often in his papers. I told you some examples here. What’s your stand on this? The Moon fulfills exactly one rotation of his own during one orbit around the earth. The cycloid movement is irrelevant there. Just compare the length of the orbit and moons diameter. Mathis used the moon and numbers from NASA to support his idea. Another misdirection. He is to smart to not know this. I think it’s his kind of humor to fool people.


  54. There’s a large assumption, that ties into your argument of atmospheric limit altitude and you’ve defined it as “some altitude and then there is nothing but vacuum”, or as the altitude of “second rainbow ring”, then “this line”and “this altitude”. Can you specify at what altitude there is no air friction left remaining, thus eliminating the need for satellite’s occasional engine thrust to compensate for drag? If you assume undefined altitude, then it’s not correct to say all satellites are orbiting within the vacuum, because we can’t define the needed altitude to access 100% vacuum, thus we can’t conclude what you suggest. It’s too essential in this analysis of atmospheric “edge” to be undefined as you propose. I’d speculate that it’s much higher then 200 miles (>300km), which is an estimated altitude of upper ionosphere where Aurora Borealis can be observed. “The most common aurora colour which is green, is produced by oxygen molecules located about 60 miles above the earth. The rarer red auroras are produced by high-altitude oxygen, at heights of up to 200 miles. Nitrogen produces blue or purple aurora.” This non-wiki source and the phenomenon itself point to the essence of our debate – atmospheric “edge” is not clear-cut. Do you have any evidence to support your claims about satellites orbiting in vacuum geo-orbit, that would clearly show there is no drag / friction?

    Regarding cycloid, you don’t show any desire to look at the same point on circle’s boundary when in motion and which defines cycloid and has everything to do with Pi=4 in kinematic situations. I don’t deny the static Pi and its meaning, so we have nothing to discuss, actually. However, I’d ask you to link here Mathis’ paper where he allegedly used sides of the triangle to calculate Pi. When Mathis describes what led him to conclusions about kinematic Pi=4, showing his explanation on the diagram as shown in Newton’s Principia, he says : ” This means that the historical and current interpretation cannot be correct. The hypotenuses do not converge to the curve or the arc. No, as I show above, it is the tangent that converges upon the arc, but the convergence happens only when the tangent equals the radius. This convergence can happen only at 1/8th of the circle, and it happens just as I show in these papers “. . I think it’s about time you should resort to math and try to prove where he misdirects.

    Liked by 2 people

  55. I completely agree. It was a pathetic “paper”. One big brag of how smart Mr. Mathis is, even too smart for chess. He wouldn’t stand a chance against a good player, I am sure. Met some Russian chess players and yes, there’s a high level of intelligence, psychological insight and strategic thinking needed to be a good player.

    Yes, the big games are rigged, but so is every big sport. But what Mathis did here was essentially saying in football (I mean real football, not that American commercial hours-long bullcrap that you don’t play with your feet and not even with a ball!) that because the Champions League is manufactured, Miles Mathis could win against Messi.

    He almost seems like he seeks to destroy his audience with this latest rag. No words about one of the biggest jewish “antisemites” of modern history (after Adolph Hiller and Jewseph Goebbels), no genealogy, nothing.

    Just one big arrogant rant of an attention seeker. Blegh.


  56. What exactly you mean when you say they are “actors”? I see conspiracy people using the “actor” word, but I have the impression that I understand the situation a little bit different. The most important thing in my opinion is that these “actors’ probably come from elite families, they are not just random people selected for their acting skills. So they act in the interest of their family without the need of coercion. Also they are probably not concerned about receiving money since they are already from the elite families. “The actors” are probably the elite kids that were selected and trained to be the public face of these people. I would also not assume that these “actors” are stupid. For example many people believe that the last Bush president was very stupid. But the question is how much of that stupidity was scripted?

    Regarding the chess “actors” , I would assume they are selected based on their skill. They probably can beat regional players. I wonder if anybody reading this and knows more about chess and chess competitions, has a good scenario about how these “actors” fake it to the top. Do they have to cheat using various methods? I assume they can beat most lower rank people.

    Gaia, I don’t know how you arrived at some of your conclusions regarding the last paper. Where did he imply that he can beat good chess players. The main ideas were that he doesn’t like or care about the game, that the game is promoted as being something important and that the game is rigged at the top. Your Messi-football analogy has nothing to do with the paper. I agree that maybe he bashed the game a little too much, but his bashing seems to be an emotional reaction or annoyance to the heavy promotion of the game and some players. The biggest chess related psyop right know is the AI beating Kasparov (Mathis touched on that a little bit). In the past it was probably the US vs Soviets, where Fischer played a role. Mathis didn’t bash the game completely since he said “As you know, they teach chess to “brainy” kids ostensibly as a form of mind sharpening; and although it can do that in moderation, anything beyond that moderation will be not a mind sharpening but a mind narrowing”.

    Also what do yo mean regarding Hitler/Hiller? He already has a big paper about Hitler and the “Nazi” in general. Even in the Fischer paper he stated something about Heller and Hiller .

    I agree that I also see some of his ideas or attitudes as arrogant. But I also see some arrogance in other alternative writers. I read some of them saying that only “I” cover this topic/topics or only “I” have ideas that can explain various things. I also see the attitude express in the sentence “I don’t read other alternative websites/blogs”. Sometimes the other alternative websites are put under the category “conspiratard”. Some things must be handled in a more elegant manner if you want positive outcomes.


Comments are closed.