Iconoclasts: Miles W. Mathis

iconOf the four I have written about these past two weeks, this one stands out as a true icon buster. He has disassembled fake reality before our eyes in almost every imaginable area of life, from science to fake events to art.

In my interview with Faye, she seemed deeply suspicious that Mr. Mathis is a front for a committee, and I could not dissuade her. But stop and think: If it is so, then the overlords are working against themselves, one faction exposing perhaps some truth while another (larger one) works to keep us in the dark. Just as a thought experiment, imagine that to be the case. Would it not then point to a split, factions working against each other? And if Mr. Mathis is right in any, most, or all of his writings, then he would he not represent a faction of light? (It could be that all factions are putting out misdirection … if so, I have to resign. It is too much.)

I don’t think the committee-front idea to be the case. I simply think that Faye and others who make these suppositions have a hard time grappling with the idea of one man having so much ability. He puts out tremendous written volume on science as well as fake events and history. He paints, restores old books, sculpts … he does not travel much that I know about. I assume he needs less sleep than the average person. He doesn’t drink or use drugs, meaning his mind is constantly clear when not sleeping. Not only do I think it possible that he is real and genuine, but highly probable.

I mentioned Mark Devlin in the interview with Faye as the opposite of Mathis. Devlin is a disc jockey in England, and presents himself as an expert on music. He was written books like Musical Truth 1 and 2 … full disclosure here – after listening to him interviewed I decided I did not want to read his books. They are at best limited hangouts. In interviews he seldom ever gets to a point or reaches a conclusion. It is frustrating … “Get to the point, man! Say something final!”  But it does not happen. He just rattles on.

I bring up Mr. Devlin because he as a water carrier for the Paul-is-Dead psyop. I contacted him personally when in Europe (and in his time zone) to explain to him that the McCartney mystery had long been solved, and presented the evidence. He engaged me briefly and then blew me off, and not kindly. He’s still doing the psyop. My conclusion: SPOOK! His job: Keep the mysteries alive.

Mr. Mathis, on the other hand, solves mysteries and moves on. Mathis (along with Tyrone McCloskey) solved JFK, at least that the assassination was fake, setting me free. I am grateful for that. He solved Lincoln. He solved the Tate/Manson affair. He solved Lennon, OJ, MLK … even reaching out to take on the Shakespeare controversy (which I do not regard as solved.) He has thrown the unexpected at us, giving us new takes on Custer’s Last Stand, the Lindbergh flight/kidnapping and Salem Witch Trials (on which Gnostic Media, by comparison, has done a half fast job.)  His genealogy is testing my patience, and his focus on Jews troubles as well … that is, anyone who wants to discredit him can easily point to the matter of Jews and take an easy exit. But I withhold judgement on things I do not like just to see where he takes us.

Mathis has a standalone website that has built up a large following without him ever having done a YouTube or an interview. We have to come to him. He does not seek us out. That is evidence towards genuine, as I see it.

I ask that commenters here be respectful. This is not a venue for personal attacks. If you want to insinuate that Mathis is a spook or a front for a committee, or that his genealogy is too loose and undisciplined, fine. That is fair chase. Do not stoop to low-grade insult. If I have Internet while traveling, I will remove any such comments.

And understand, Mathis has attacked this website, and is not my friend. I am not sucking up to him, as he would trust me even less if I did. I simply take him as real, admire him, and understand that needs his independence.

Here is what I think: He is an isolated genius, and in person a genuinely nice man, soft-spoken and possessed of a good heart. He has trust issues with … well, everyone. He is, in my mind, a true iconoclast.

156 thoughts on “Iconoclasts: Miles W. Mathis

  1. I don’t know how I found Miles. I think I saw some one mention him in a blog and I investigated on my own. I like Miles. I find the genealogy boring so I usually go to the last part where he puts it all together. I resonate when he unravels the fake events. I was blown away with all the JFK,Lincoln,OJ, Tate, ect papers! We have been lied to on such a HUGE LEVEL that I appreciate someone like Miles to help me sort through. I’ve e mailed him a few times and he really seems like a normal guy with above normal intelligence. I wish I knew some one to introduce him to because I think he is a little lonely…I don’t think living in Taos gives him many options in that department. But then if he was happily living with some one we might not get these awesome updates. I like Miles and wish him continued good health and peace. I’ll continue to check in on his site. Thanks for the nice article on him, it was a good read.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Just a word of warning … we are not censorious in that we warn you in advance that under “About this Blog” and “Commenting Policy” above. Transgender, like flat earth, is not allowed. You will see in the policy that you are simply warned, and if a repeat offender, banned, but only for a short while. No one is permanently banned here. But you are warned now, stay away from transgender.


        1. Man, you guys and your psyops! You never show shame or embarrassment as you put forth this crap. You just push it. It must be for pay, otherwise I cannot see how people stoop so low.

          So where on this flat earth does one go for refuge from it all? Oh yeah. here.


        2. “Straight,”a former writer here, wrote that piece long, long ago before we had a commenting policy that forbade delving into issues that were obvious psyops. As can be seen with your engagement here, they tend to derail threads. So cool it, or you are gone.


        3. This type of behavior, Mark, is why Miles “doesn’t like” you. Savannah only briefly mentioned the forbidden topic, then you derail into the censorship stuff, then accuse HER of derailing. I don’t see anything she said about it as annoying, offensive, or off the mark. We should be free to discuss things without worrying about stuff like that.

          I generally enjoy your open-mindedness but in this particular situation, I think you’re just being weird.

          Liked by 1 person

        4. It was Painful and not Healing that set me off, as he claimed that we were not allowed to talk about anything important because trannies were not being discussed. Trannies is not important, in my view, just a distraction.


        5. Jared Magneson wrote: This type of behavior, Mark, is why Miles “doesn’t like” you.

          What a curious, random, personal bit of knowledge for Jared to have! And to share in this way …


        6. I went back and re-read the article Miles Mathis wrote on Piece of Mindful.

          Click to access pom.pdf

          Mathis states that he was breaking off any perceived links with this website because he was getting annoying emails & he did not agree with the conclusions being reached here, and also did not like the method of picture portrait comparisons. When Jared Magneson
          says “This type of behavior, Mark, is why Miles “doesn’t like” you. ” this does not appear to be an accurate assessment of what Mathis said.

          But when Jared Magneson then says “I generally enjoy your open-mindedness but in this particular situation, I think you’re just being weird.” I do agree with that assessment. Healingwithsavannah said nothing out of line and her mention of the forbidden word seems blown out of proportion. It reminds me of the story about a 5 year old who got expelled from school for making a paper cutout of a gun. Just because you made a rule is no excuse to over-enforce it in some sort of zero tolerance policy.

          This sort of zero tolerance enforcement is one of the symptoms of the “collective insanity of mankind”, well illustrated in Sean Kerrigan’s book: https://www.amazon.com/Bureaucratic-Insanity-American-Bureaucrats-Descent/dp/1530989523/

          Liked by 1 person

        7. I did not take the comment about him not liking me personally … I don’t think he functions that way. I never got the sense that he liked or disliked me or anyone. He can as easily dismiss someone as be nice … just his way.

          Regarding the dust up on trannies, HealingwithSavannah had already announced she was done and allowed me to delete her comments (which I did not do) as the subject was important to her. I went off on PainfulTruth2017 because he seemed to think if we did not talk about trannies, we were not taking about anything important. That is how they insinuate, bringing these topics in and derailing threads. I won’t have it. I rarely step on anyone except for weird comments that never get published. This time I did. Maybe Painful doesn’t like me now too.


        8. PainfulTruth2017 also is linked to a single-post blog. Looks like something thrown up a year ago. By itself this means nothing. But it would be consistent with the m.o. of someone with a covert agenda.


        9. Damn, Mark! It looks like you were triggered! You say you don’t censor, yet we are “not allowed” to mention certain subjects, that we must “stay away” from them, or else be “banned”? Does this make PoM a “limited hangout” then, and you, a “gatekeeper”?

          I’ll state here, at the risk of being banned, that yes, the “transgender” subject IS important. 20+ years ago, I turned off the TV, cancelled my newspaper and magazine subscriptions, and stopped watching movies. When I occasionally watch or read the media these days, I can clearly see that something is very different! All the women on my mother’s favorite “news” channel, FOX, look strangely masculine. (Now I know why they use tons of makeup and dress them in revealing clothing, showing lots of cleavage: so you don’t notice the masculine features, strong brow ridges or jawlines.) You say it’s all a “psyop”, which I can partially agree with; I think most of the “transvestigation” YouTube channels are “controlled opposition”. (Why have no celebrities sued them yet?) I don’t believe they are all “gender-reversed”, that it’s something else like genetic-modification and engineering to create a new, intersex/androgynous/transhuman species? GMO “humans”. I want to know why this is being done, and I have some idea about what’s happening, and what the end game is, but can’t discuss those things here because it’s “not important”…

          Perhaps, if you had children who were so thoroughly programmed by schools, universities, TV, media, music and everything else labeled “culture”, are now in their late 30’s and never had a long-term relationship, never married and will never have any children, then you’d consider it more seriously. (I know it’s “real”, because I, too, had idolized my favorite rock stars and actors, finding real boys and men to be substandard to the ideal male with the pretty-boy looks that I was programmed to find most attractive. My ex-husband fell in love with skinny Victoria’s Secret models with their masculine looks, tiny asses and fake big boobs.) And it’s not just my family, it’s the same with quite a few family members, friends and associates. My bloodline will become extinct when my children die, as will all the others without any progeny. That is devastatingly significant and yes, important, at least to me.

          Liked by 3 people

  3. I ran across Miles Mathis a few years ago from a link in a comment at sott.net. I have been reading everything. I ordered two of his science books which I have not yet had the time to fully absorb and verify. Seems like the book purchase was from Melisa Smith, whom he says is just himself (an anagram of his name). I came to this website after Miles Mathis mentioned it.

    From around day 2 of reading his stuff I became convinced that all this material had to be produced by a committee. He has just too many areas of expertise, for instance his knowledge of law and courtroom protocol does not seem consistent with the stay at home artist. But he is at his best when analyzing portrait photographs, which is certainly consistent with his profession as an artist. He himself mentioned that there has been so many intelligence fakery operations that the real history was in danger of being entirely lost. If Miles Mathis is himself the front for an intelligence operation then part of it’s purpose must be to clarify some of the historical record. Likewise there has been so much fakery in science that his physics and math work could be seen in the same light, as a correction to the historical record.

    I think that in his recent work on genealogy he has been discrediting his previous work. It is not as carefully done nor is it as convincing. Perhaps he was becoming too convincing, and it was decided to back off some?

    I think he is flat out wrong on a few topics – one, for instance is the chemtrails issue. He may be right that the majority of that is fly ash disposal, but there seems to me to be more than that to it. I think he brushed off the topic without a fair appraisal.

    I wrote him a few emails but he was pretty short with me, and I think he suspects that I may be some sort of intel operation. Either that, or the committee is just not all that into responding to email. I remain undecided – either he is our generation’s Leonardo, or he is an artist fronting for an intelligence committee.

    I have tried to get many people to read his stuff. I think it is best to start with some of the older articles like the Tate.pdf or Lennon, where his skills in picture analysis shines. I have only one friend who has followed through and actually read his material, so it is not easy to get people to start into his writings.


    1. I like this comment and agree with the general thrust. I must say, however, that as an accounting student I had to study law, and I loved it. It flowed logically and naturally. In practice, it is a matter of who has the better lawyer, but baseline law was understandable, logical, and a thing of beauty. I do not think it outside the realm of the non-lawyer to grasp the concepts.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. I completely disagree about him having multiple areas of knowledge being a marker or flag. I myself have dozens, maybe hundreds. Physics, art, computing tech, CGI, 3D rendering, gardening, horticulture, engineering and auto mechanics, raising animals and pets, raising children, studying music, legalities of criminal and family law, and on and on and on. I can discourse on any of those topics readily – all without any committee at all.

      If you’re not able to discourse about multiple topics that are very different, you’re simply not an apt student. Everyone I interact with in real life can handle it without committee as well.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. It was through Miles Mathis that I found POM, via Josh as in-between step. I read every hoax paper of MM and some of his earlier art stuff too, have read like 5-10 science papers, but I stay away from those.

    I think he is genuine and he may have a different style, staying away from all others (no blog comments, audios, YouTube, etc.). He has all the right to do that and there is nothing wrong with that. Now, with the YouTube (and blog; Hoax Busters Call) purge, I understand why he writes his papers in pdf format; they are stored and he simply can (re)upload them to his simple, not fancy site.

    Genealogy is fun if you do it yourself and as he does it himself, I very well understand he enjoys it. When you have to read it, it can be pretty boring indeed.

    His output I do not find at all impossible. It is impressive, but if some YouTube watcher who spends 8-10 hours a day on YT would use his/her time the way Miles Mathis does, easily you can write big papers he does. And the more you practice, the better you get at something.

    And that ties in to my only criticism to Miles Mathis in the hoax arena; I feel he sometimes skips steps and jumps to conclusions which may be sloppy, shaky. A more perfectionistic approach would improve the quality of his papers even more but lower the output as a result a bit.

    His science stuff I skip, don’t find it convincing or interesting. But that is fine. Mark is not into EGI and FE (just like myself) and yet can perfectly contribute to and comment on Ab’s blog where there are 2 dedicated sub blogs for those controversial and in my view misdirecting topics.

    If there will be another conference, I will try to make that effort, because I think talking with him in person is a lot of fun and a hugely interesting week of learning. Just like I enjoyed talking with Mark about all the research he has done.


    1. If you didn’t find his science and physics convincing, you simply didn’t read it. You said 5-10 papers, which ones might those have been? He has hundreds, and they’re all very solid and devastating to the mainstream models. Damning, really. Game over type stuff, for the current physics agenda.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Gaia thinks he can attend a future MM conference but MM screens his attendees carefully. No slam dunk. As contrarian Allan Weisbecker will attest to!


        1. That’s interesting. I e mailed MM two years ago and asked if he covered other topics other than physics at his conference since that was not my real interest. He said he was considering including some of the other things he does in the updates. He said I should come and hear the whole conference. I could not attend as it happened, but thought it was nice he offered.

          Liked by 1 person

  5. I am one of the few people that defends his emphasis on genealogy. Probably his methods need improvement. When he speculates about genealogy he is most likely right if we consider everything else. He usually also looks at biographical anomalies, not just the genealogy. The most important thing is that he emphasizes the “who”. Historical events are made or manufactured by actual people, so the issue of “who” is very important. The people that manufacture major events are not random people that belong to the disorganized masses. I also assume that this world is not just a hologram or the game of some god or gods.
    The topic of “Jews” is related to the who. A few times he mentioned that these elites are elite Jews (he always connects these people to the peerage), not your Jewish spouse, your Jewish coworker or what not (unless you move in elite circles). In previous comments I already mentioned that some words have more meanings, even esoteric meanings that most people don’t know about (even I don’t pretend to know the real origins of these words, but I am aware of certain additional possibilities). Nonetheless, if we see patterns we cannot ignore them. If you want to ignore these patterns , then you waste your time trying to understand the topics where this patterns occur. Maybe Mathis doesn’t have the best explanation, but he at least he points out the patterns, including the Jewish connections. Also you can look at these patterns without hate and anger.

    Regarding his science, I appreciate his emphasis on real mechanics. No hyperdimensions, virtual particles, funny paradoxes or other booshit. The real mechanics resonates well with me. Some people may want more illustrations of his principles. Despite being a painter he probably is not good with computer software like Blender or other software that can be used for animation or drawing.

    His realism in paintings also resonate with me. Some people criticized him for having an apprentice that is better than him. This is ridiculous. Even Leonardo said that the apprentice or pupil should be better than the master . I am not a painter, so I cannot comment on his technique. I can say that I am not a fan of portraits. I usually like landscapes, seascapes or symbolic paintings (but still realist). Nonetheless, his defense of realism was also a major plus for me.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I feel pretty much the same way. Mathis hits me with all kinds of new knowledge and ideas I’d have never learned of otherwise. He does give me a lot of shit about my CGI art, but that’s to be expected.

      As for diagrams, myself and a few others have been working pretty hard on that type of stuff. I have a small pile of videos if anyone is interested, here’s my favorite one outlining how charge flows through Helium, the so-called “Alpha particle”:

      Liked by 3 people

  6. Agreed with the rest but this “some people may want more illustrations of his principles” is one my points against his science stuff. Break it down so normal people can understand it. He surely has that capacity and a good “teacher” can do that. Others I have talked to question him for that point only. I don’t, I am just not convinced.

    His hoax and especially history papers are at such a different level and angle; they show he actually dives deep and doesn’t care about what others think of it. His science papers imho step in half-way. Taking some claims seriously, but just rearrange the maths and tie it into the “Electrical Universe”/”Charge Model” idea.

    Miles Mathsis…


    1. He’s a theorist, not a schoolteacher. And we’re all free to analyze and diagram his theories – so that’s what I do in my spare time. Here for example is a simple video I made showing how stacked spins occur, mechanically:

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Thank you Jared. MM has no obligation whatsoever to simplify his theories for the “normal people”. You weren’t stopped from creating a video to bring the theory to life. Good for you.

        Liked by 2 people

  7. I’ve read many of MM’s “updates” papers and enjoy them. He is my favorite researcher by far. I don’t always agree 100% but then I’ve never met anyone I agree with 100% and don’t expect I ever will. I’d say I agree with about 90% of Miles’ opinions and that’s a great deal more than anyone else out there at the moment. Miles has told us may times that his papers represent his opinions so I don’t care what logical jumps he might make. They’re his opinions and he can jump anywhere he wants to. I jump to conclusions too at times. We all do.

    I usually skim through his genealogy research. I have had some realizations from reading it but I don’t consider it as important as many other points that he makes. The reason I don’t think it’s all that important is that, from my own research, it appears that many famous personalities may not actually come from the families that they are claimed to come from. That is, their alleged parents are not really their biological parents. So, the genealogy being researched is not really that of the subject. And, I suspect the reason for THAT is that many of these people actually come from a very few or perhaps even only one family and that fact is being covered up by shuffling babies around to different families further down the food chain.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. pretty sure mm is committee. his physics work was covered years ago by milton monson’s ‘physics is constipated.’ my high school physics teacher used monson’s work to reveal the outright fraud of much of modern science. i emailed mm to find out if he was aware of monson, never received a response, which was revelatory, in that someone had always gotten back to me prior to my asking that question.

    not to say that what is posted isn’t worth considering, but much of what he claims is his cv is hard to believe….


    1. Miles W. Mathis
      Milton W. Monson

      “Milton W. Monson, First Lieutenant Air Force, WW II Veteran. Beloved husband of the late Charlotte R.; loving father of Milton W. Monson II, of Bridgeview, IL, and stepfather to Rita G. (James G.) Dakin of Bridgeview, IL; cherished grandfather of Michael J. (Michele) Linden and Edward C. (Valerie) Linden; great-grandfather of four. Born February 29, 1912 in Orrville, OH, lived for the last 43 years in Bridgeview, IL. Died at Hines VA Hospital, Hines, IL, on October 4, 2002. Retired training officer for the Veterans Administration, Member of American Association for Advancement of Science Interests. Singer with the Buddy Rogers Band. Author of Physics text book. Inventor of the Calen-culator. Future service to be held at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery. In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to the Disabled American Veterans Charitable Service Trust, 3725 Alexandria Pike, Cold Spring, KY, 41076. Info: 859-441-7300. Cremation Society of Illinois handling arrangements.”

      Published in a Chicago Tribune Media Group Publication on Oct. 13, 2002


  9. MM makes a lot of good points, but is still flawed in many others. He makes too many assumptions in his analyses. I still believe that Hitler was legit, but some may say I am biased since I am German – but I may change my mind on Hitler with new information in the future.


  10. A further remark on Miles Mathis’ genealogy work, and also the science and math:

    I am finding what I have gone through on the math errors to be correct and significant. It has revealed to me what I had found to be depressing about a calculus class I took in high school in 1970. when I first had decided not to be railroaded into a math career. I now believe I had detected subconsciously one of the errors he points out and at that point I lost all interest in math until I went back to it in 1980 for my pursuit of the EE degree.

    I had already developed major disagreements with the progression of electrical science that are consistent with Mathis’ approach. The scalar term (the constant) that is dropped from the complete form of Maxwell’s equations seems to relate to gravity fields and I have yet to decode if or how Mathis has dealt with this in his “charge field” theories. The typical use of “scalar” as a term describing covert technology (by T Bearden, for instance) appears to be disinformation, or a form of incorrect use of language.

    Since I have recently (in the past 2 months) retired (at least temporarily) I hope to find time to make more sense of the science side of Mathis’ work.

    The genealogy work I find believable but annoyingly filled with unverified leaps of intuition. I believe it myself, since I was already quite familiar with the stories that a few bloodline families form an intergenerational cult that favors it’s own linage with money and power, and I needed no convincing. But I am mostly annoyed by it because this part of Mathis’ work cannot seem to stand on it’s own. He has not filled it in enough that I can use any of the articles in that vein to convince any of my skeptical friends. Many of his works, like the takedown of the replacement for S. Hawking are stand-alone proofs that do not require a new reader to be familiar with his earlier work to be convincing. I wish he would return to doing more work along that line.

    I began to investigate the “conspiracy” realm when I began to work on “free energy” devices in the 1990’s. At that time I found myself in a circle of people who had been infiltrated by intelligence agents. Free energy is quite obviously possible (though I’d prefer to call it “ambient energy”) and I ran across evidence that it has been repeatedly suppressed. I stopped this line of work when I saw there was no way to succeed in the work without it being weaponized and control of it stolen from me. From there my research diverted into studying the collective insanity of humanity.

    Finding Mathis’ descriptions of systematic deceptions in our contemporary history filled in a lot of holes in the big picture. He even wrote one article that directly exposed a person I had been introduced to in my “free energy” phase as certainly being an intelligence agent, and I will always be grateful for his adding clarity to my own personal history in the puzzling events that turned me away from doing the “free energy” work.

    Liked by 3 people

      1. OK, well now that I am retired perhaps I will start a blog. As well as addressing my odd tracks of research, I would have to do some of it on converting bicycles to electric bikes. I wrote an outline this morning (more like a list of starting points on the theme). It won’t be right away since I will probably want to build my own server first and will avoid all the Google censorship traps if I can.

        Once central problem humanity faces though, is that a large percentage of people can be easily hypnotized and led around by the nose.


    1. Alan, I would be interested in hearing more about your experiences from working on free energy (and being turned away from it) and who was the intelligence agent you had been introduced to. And what is the mathematical error Miles pointed out that you had intuited long ago.

      In my opinion, the introduction of a DIY ‘free energy’ device is the best chance we have at anything revolutionary as it would remove one of the major choke-holds TPTB have on humanity. I have encouraged Miles to put his scientific theories to work on it, and he said he has but is for now reluctant to publish due in part to the possibility of weaponization. In my opinion, TPTB have already learned how to take advantage of ‘free energy,’ both for power supply and weapons. The enormous smokescreen and misdirection that is much of 20th century science (and probably long before that) was purposely designed to move the commoners off the scent of an accurate science that would give them power.

      I’ve been following the field of cold fusion/LENR for some years now, and two years ago when I started reading Miles’s physics work, it quickly became clear to me that his theories could be used to explain (and ideally harness) LENR and other ‘free energy’ devices. What you call ‘ambient energy’ is just Mathis’s charge field. I wrote a paper trying to apply some of his theories to LENR. I’ll link to it below, with the caveat that some of my thinking on the issue has changed. But it at least offers a brief overview of parts of his theory along with lots of links to related papers: https://goo.gl/5kgB0G

      I’ll be happy to continue a dialogue with you at the e-mail listed at the top of that paper.

      As for Maxwell’s equations and scalars, you should read the papers on his science website under the section ‘The Unified Field’ plus paper #3 in the overview/intro section. Alternatively, read his paper on Maxwell’s equations and all the papers linked to within, and I believe it will answer your question: http://milesmathis.com/disp.pdf

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Josh, thank you for your paper on Mathis’ theories and LENR, I found it very enlightening. I’ve read Mathis’ papers “The Nuclear Hoax” and “The Bikini Atoll Nuclear Tests were Faked” and agree with his conclusions regarding hoaxed detonations. However, I’m still trying to make sense of the physics behind nuclear weapons. For example, is a nuclear chain reaction a real event or another example of fake science? I’m open to the possibility that a nuclear hoax has been perpetuated for decades to keep the masses frightened so that they are:
        1) easier to control
        2) dissuaded from exploring avenues toward free energy
        I’m just trying to get a better grasp on the mechanics so that it will be easier to separate fact from fiction. If you have any additional information, or suggestions for further reading, I would be most appreciative.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Thanks for the kind words. In his paper on “What is Really Going on Behind the Nuclear Program?” he says they’re mainly using Uranium to produce Caesium, from which they can harness free electrons.

          In that paper he says that is the main use of nuclear power: the creation of caesium atoms. He has a paper on the structure of the Uranium atom that helps explain why it is so radioactive (that is, why it splits apart so easily): http://milesmathis.com/uranium.pdf

          So it doesn’t seem like he is opposed to the idea that uranium is radioactive. But I’ve never read anything where he said that nuclear weapons should not be feasible on the basis of his scientific theories. In fact, his paper on Uranium suggests that they could very well be feasible. I have never asked him if there is a scientific basis for believing nuclear weapons don’t exist. All I have seen are his papers showing that the visual evidence for them is bunk. So I can’t offer you any clarification I’m afraid. I know that Bryan M who posted a comment here has spent a good deal of time looking into this issue and decided that nuclear weapons do not exist. I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but perhaps he can explain what brought him to that conclusion (if he’s listening).

          Liked by 1 person

          1. You’re welcome, Josh. I’ve always enjoyed your pieces wherever I’ve found them (here, Mathis’ site, your own site). Thanks for the recommendations. It’s been a while since I’ve read those two Mathis papers but I’ll revisit them and see if I can glean more information.
            I think you’re right: Mathis hasn’t said explicitly that nuclear weapons aren’t feasible. I’d be curious to know where he stands on the issue of their existence. Perhaps I’ll send him an email with a few questions.
            I’d love to read Bryan M’s thoughts on the matter, if he’s interested in sharing.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Hi Josh. I haven’t looked at the science of nukes at all, just the test videos and related history. Along the way, I found a lot of small things that Miles may not have mentioned in his papers. As I’ve mentioned before, the most convincing thing for me is the absence of any photographic evidence of a surface formed by the heat of a nuclear explosion. If explosions so powerful existed, you’d figure that one photograph would exist of a melted rock crater surface. But it seems like they never even bothered to fake a photo of that.

            But are nuclear explosions possible? I don’t know enough about the science to say. My gut tells me, probably not. I have a particle physicist friend who doesn’t know how nuclear explosions work, really, and claims to have never met someone who did. Apparently, this isn’t a thing they teach to physicists.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. In his paper on Uranium, he explains its radioactivity (and all radioactivity) as those atomic structures which “leak” the most charge non-linearly (electricity) or magnetically (equatorial emissions). Uranium is so large, it’s basically a molecule, a union of Krypton and Barium. It’s radioactive decay comes from its charge profile, which is pretty stable (U238 has a half-life of 4.47 billion years, U235 some 704 million).

            But when it comes to nuclear fission, the issue is how COULD a “chain reaction” occur. It would require more energy in than can be accounted for, as in more energy comes out than goes in. We have neutrons bombarding the Uranium nucleus, and to “break” Uranium they’d have to hit roughly on that connecting alpha, between Krypton and Barium. I believe this is possible and is what they do at fission energy reactors.

            But the problem is that (in the mainstream theory) the incoming collision plus the “binding energy” somehow propels those two Uranium neutrons out at speeds equivalent to the incoming, bombarding ones. Here is a video I made diagramming the issue:

            If the incoming neutron has, say, an energy of “10” (for easy math), then a collision would half that, for example. So the incoming would drop to 5, and the Uranium neutron hit would go up to 5. That leaves us with two moving neutrons with half the energy it might take to bump out OTHER neutrons. So let’s track the second collision – energy of 5 neutron hits another Uranium atom’s central alpha (where Krypton and Barium are joined), dropping to 2.5 and knocking another out with an energy of 2.5. The third collision, 1.25, and on like that.

            Really basic example using quick math, but hopefully that makes my point. The chain reaction is the myth. If it were real, we should see a lot of Uranium randomly exploding naturally, since stray neutrons bounce around us all the time. Protons too – remember, Hydrogen itself is just a proton with an electron pal trailing behind, and sometimes a neutron pal too.

            Liked by 2 people

        2. Mathis proves that a few initial nuke test events were faked. It may be that captured German weapons were used in Japan. I would like to know if Mathis thinks depleted uranium pollution is dangerous.


          1. Alan, this brings to my mind the Fukushima disaster. I’ve occasionally come across comments on the internet alluding to the disaster being a hoax. An interesting assertion! Could it be true? I wish I knew the answer. This kind of speculation fuels my own personal desire to learn as much as I can about nuclear physics. In that regard, Mathis’ papers are very helpful, although there is always more to uncover and learn.


          2. RE: RENDAR
            I too have been trying to figure out the Fukushima situation. I believe the ocean pollution picture is being complicated by glyphosate (Roundup) which may not be breaking down in water fast enough so that there are problems with the plankton. Could it be that problems being caused by other forms of pollution are being blamed on Fukushima?

            I have been observing disinformation on radiation readings. Reporting counts per minute is sort of meaningless, since the orientation of the sensor and it’s size is not accounted for in CPM measurements. It is also possible to sense the voltage of an ionization event, but cheap sensors cannot do this, and confused reporters miss this sort of thing entirely. Some data I’ve looked at appeared to correlate with altitude, and that also was being overlooked and misreported, but it makes sense that locations at higher altitude would naturally have a higher background count. I saw some fear porn reporting on radiation that appeared on Veterans Today, and they should know better.

            Liked by 1 person

  11. Wondering how certain people get to the top of my local corporations, and even local government positions. I noticed none of these “suits” or “goons” ever worked their way up from the entry level jobs like the rest of us. I guess four more years of true/false and multiple choice questions, or walking across a checker board floor, earns the right to six more digits of pay. And for example how does one in his early 20’s from Lafayette, Indiana just move to L.A. and within a short time frame becomes a global rock icon…..Welcome to the Jungle? Or thanks to MM, Welcome to the Genealogy! Aha and all along I thought those big profitable and famous positions went to the ones on the basis of talent, effort and achievement…

    Liked by 1 person

  12. In my experience, Mathis is brief and curt in his replies to my physics questions – but always helpful. And supportive of my attempts to diagram and illustrate his theories. He doesn’t care for my art but I’m not a big fan of portrait painting either, though I do recognize his skill there.

    Here’s one of mine:

    In my opinion, a committee would more likely LOVE my artwork. Not because I’m vain but because of the technique involved (using Maya, full-on 3D rendering and modeling). It’s often humorous to me to see NASA vids and SpaceX stuff, because I can readily spot the CGI every time. Which further bolsters Mathis’s position on those industries.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Mathis also wrote a paper on this very topic – “ON WEAK ALLIES”

      “In this sense alone, my friend above is dead wrong: the more cracks the better. The more evidence of fraud I can compile, the stronger my overall argument becomes. And the more cracks I show, the more opportunities for escape from the current prison there will be. What is a passable crack to a physicist may not be a passable crack for a chemist or geologist or astronomer. So although I hit a lot of topics to keep myself fresh, this method has the welcome side effect of creating many points of weakness in the current edifice, points of exit from many cells. After a decade, my papers are starting to have the effect of a colony of termites on a wooden penitentiary, and the guards hardly have enough planks or nails to fill all the escape holes. In truth, the integrity of the entire structure has been compromised, and a collapse is imminent. It would probably be best for the inmates to get out before they get trapped under the falling rubble. ”


      Liked by 1 person

  13. Miles is a front for an intel committee exposing fake writers fronting for intel committees?

    I think Miles would laugh at that one. I know I did.

    But, I don’t think that knowing something about more than one subject is a red flag or that it means he is a committee. Intelligent people often do know about more than one thing and these days a great deal can be learned by simply searching online.

    Miles isn’t even always right about all these “extramural” details. For example, when discussing Charlie Manson he commented that prisoners are not allowed to have beards which isn’t true, at least not in California. Google it. It’s also not necessarily true that a dark outline around a figure in a film photograph means it is a paste-up. This outlining was a common form of photo retouching done with news photos to separate figures from similarly shaded background so they would be more distinct when published in the crappy halftone resolution used by newspapers of the day.

    But, I don’t say these things to knock Miles, only to point out that he is human. As I said above I agree with 90% of what he writes but there a few things I know about that he might not. I have written him about some details that I thought he was mistaken about and he was polite and receptive of my comments.

    In any case, I think Miles is a pretty smart guy and quite observant and logical. He is also quite funny and I very much enjoy his writings.


    1. OK then that makes a few people who have criticized my comment that I (at first) thought that Miles Mathis may be a front for a committee. I accept this criticism kindly and agree now that he is probably doing most of his work without assistance except where he says otherwise.

      I don’t have the references handy but he himself brought up the need for “intelligence” to correct the historical record – he says often that intelligence products are written by committee, and so it was not so large a leap for me to make that he might even be surreptitiously be admitting to that very fact. With a bit of work I could tie together quotes from him to support this point but it would only be a joke that I would not myself be taking seriously (at this late date).

      I am glad to hear that a few of you have met him in person. I have not. I was joking to my friend the other day that Miles Mathis as pictured in his recent photos might just be the silicone love doll owned by Melisa Smith, dressed and propped against the wall for the pictures. Seriously though, I occasionally resort to sarcasm.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Well, I think it’s always good to be alert to the possibility that a writer/researcher in this milieu might be a spook. Lord knows there are many who are.

        It has happened more than once that a writer I thought was genuine turned out not to be. So, I am always a bit wary too.

        So far I believe that Miles is genuine and who he says he is. I hope I am never proven wrong about that.


      2. It seems to me, after pouring over and re-re-re-reading all of his physics papers a dozen times (and most of his art/expose’ papers as well) that anyone THAT dead-on about math and physics, that consistent in theory and writing style, and that obviously and impressively intelligent could only be so consistent by being one mind.

        That and the fact that multiple people I know have been to his conferences, along with his email correspondence to myself and a few other physics pals, closes the gap for me. He’s never exhibited any inconsistencies that I’ve seen – and I write far, far more than he does every day, in various forums from CGI to physics to social commentary to Facebook arguments on those same topics. So the volume isn’t a problem for anyone with a phone or a computer at all.


  14. I found Mathis’ website last year, by following a link from reddit.com/r/conspiracy to a guest paper about Ben Affleck and Robert Ludlum.

    That paper was pretty good, and led me to dig around Mathis’ site, where I found the papers for Charles Manson and O. J. Simpson and John Lennon. These ones are really excellent, and are the thing that finally convinced me that news and history is largely manufactured.

    I’d already been reading papers about JFK and 9/11 and Apollo for about ten years, feeling that there was some truth I was missing, but failing to reach any larger conclusions, I guess because the subject matter was too broad, and had too many angles to look at. The smaller events featuring the actions of a single main character were the key I needed to unlock the puzzle, and Miles’ papers on those were exactly on point.

    It was a few months later that I finally could begin to approach the possibility that nukes are fictional. That one was really hard, because it can be true only if the media and sciences are really tightly coordinated in lying (which they apparently are!)

    I wrote a guest paper for Miles about the Kent State Massacre, and been working on and off on a paper about the Berkley scene of the 1960s. I’ve newly uncovered so many small-time phonies while doing so, that I’m at a loss for how to categorize them. I’m not sure how many more papers I really want to write, either. But I also don’t feel that short form writing does the subject justice.

    I appreciate the genealogy work as very important, and I think the guy has a real knack for it that I haven’t seen elsewhere. But it is not what convinced me about widespread hoaxing, and I don’t think it would be particularly convincing for most people who don’t understand hoaxing yet. I’m glad that the early papers I read didn’t have too much focus on genealogy in them, because it probably would have turned me off at the time.

    There is something of a trick to coming at Mathis’ papers in rough chronological order, so you can take your journey alongside his, and get into the more advanced stuff only once you’re prepared to handle it.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Writing for me is an investigatory tool, as I don’t really get a feel for something until fingers hit the keyboard. Too often I quit too soon since, as you are finding, topics just get bigger. I look forward to seeing more of your work.


  15. Is there a forum where die-hard MM fans gather to trade commentary on his posts? I have never seen one. Critics, yes. E.g. https://milespantloadmathis.wordpress.com.

    One wonders why the gung-ho partisans haven’t built their own site for this purpose, but instead gravitate to the comment section of other blogs.


    1. Very insightful comment, Maarten. It’s ‘the pattern’ of human behavior that often gives away that slight difference that can’t be faked, no matter how ‘good’ the artist, or how much money the collaborative group has to spend on the project.


  16. Wow! Did you miss the point of my comment or what?

    I merely made a simple observation. MM has some really fervent acolytes. Some of them weigh in at this blog. Some weigh in elsewhere. No one, especially not me, has tried to stop that.

    But it stands to reason that his enthusiasts would want a safe place to trade high-fives and thoughts about his essays. Many of them display the web skillz to make that happen, to create a forum for positive commentary. But they have not.

    You can find a forum for enthusiasts of just about any subject under the sun. How is it that there is not one by now for the Theories of Miles Mathis?

    This is not a critique of MM. This is not a critique of his acolytes. It is just an observation.

    To which I add another observation. In my experience, any time anyone even breathes a whisper of doubt or reservation about Miles Mathis, out of the woodwork come all kinds of apologists itching to kick ass now and take names later. It is a level of enthusiasm that seems nearly religious in its fervor. Take for an example a remark above: “If you didn’t find his science and physics convincing, you simply didn’t read it.”

    To which my response must be:

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Maarten, your observation is quite interesting. I have actually found the reverse: wherever anybody speaks well of Miles’s work, people come out of the woodwork to denigrate it. That is especially true of his work on science.

      As for sites devoted to his work, there is a Facebook group and website (under separate management) devoted to discussions of his scientific work. The Facebook group is called MilesMathisRevolution and the website is http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

      But as far as I’m aware there is no place for a fully supportive discussion of his conspiracy/history work.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Hey Josh! Thanks for the link. I had not stumbled across this previously (not for lack of searching). Lots of food for thought.

        I followed some of the links. This one caught my eye:
        The MM acolyte who created this thread says:

        “This is a weird coincidence with John Gabriel’s calculus and Mathis’ theories. Both are nearly identical. Gabriel’s were published a few years before but apparently discovered independently from Miles Mathis. He, like Mathis, is a strict “finitist” in that you cannot have a “curve” without measurable angles (hence Pi=4) …”

        I clicked the top link listed: http://web.mit.edu/andersk/Public/John-Gabriel.pdf. Of great interest was the remark by Anders Kaseorg:

        “ … what he means by “set” and other terms (let alone “tangent line”!) is different from what mainstream mathematicians mean by these terms—he is not speaking the same language. … Perhaps that’s why [he] feels the need to so viciously attack anyone who contradicts his work. Which is a shame, because some of his work … would actually do a pretty good job of illustrating how standard calculus works, if he were willing to use the same common language of mathematics for long enough to see this.

        I have seen other instances (quite recently, in fact) where a “revolutionary mind” makes a compelling case by using words to mean something different from their conventional denotation within a field of specialty. The dilettantes won’t catch it, of course, and will applaud like a shelf of wind-up toy monkeys. It takes a real expert to catch the semantic shell-game that is being played. And even when the legerdemain is pointed out, the Amen corner will still consider it magic and not trickery.


        1. Well then, Maarten, I guess that means I’m a wind-up toy monkey. I do take your point but also note that your comment here is full of questionable assumptions. I don’t really feel like hashing them all out with you, but I will point to what I see as the biggest and most problematic one: you have never read or tried to understand Miles’s work in physics. So you have taken the criticism that someone at MIT has directed at someone else’s work, then applied that criticism to work of which you yourself are almost (entirely) ignorant (and willfully so)–implicitly criticizing Miles’s physics work of nothing more than an elaborate semantic shell game that none of us dilettante monkeys are smart or self-aware enough to recognize.

          I will say for my part that for a long time I doubted my assessment of Miles’s physics work and sought out criticism that actually engages it in a substantive way — even to point out some kind of semantic sophistry. You’d be surprised how little substantive criticism there is. 99% of it is just a lot of pettifogging, (deliberate?) misconstrual, ad hominems, and casting of aspersions.

          Wind-up toy monkey acolyte #267


        2. Josh,

          I address you here as a friend—or, if you feel (as some do) that Americans use that word too freely, then as an esteemed acquaintance. I consider myself a fan and follower of Miles Mathis and of yourself. Of the dozens of websites that once lined my bookmark bar, yours and his are among the few remaining. If Kevin Starr, another Mathis ally, reappears with his own blog, I will be checking in daily at his site as well.

          Surely you know—from our personal communications over the years—that I make a huge distinction between you and someone like WE♥MM, who created a throw-away identity simply to spin the comment thread here in one direction. Do you lump yourself in with that lot? Or with someone who brags: “ … I splatter [Mathisian things] all over [other people’s] Face book …” Classy … real classy …

          I certainly don’t lump you in with that ilk. Apples and oranges …

          You say that my biggest and most problematic assumption is that I “have never read or tried to understand Miles’s work in physics”

          Josh, that was just an odd statement. First, because this is not my assumption, it is yours. Second, I cannot fathom what your basis for this unwarranted assumption could be. Do you claim to be privy to my browser history? If so, your information is outdated. I don’t know that anyone who knows me well has ever accused me of “willful ignorance” about any topic. You don’t know me that well, so perhaps you have over-interpreted the modesty I may have expressed in private communications about my level of understanding of this or that. That modesty comes from being an actual expert in a certain field, and seeing how utterly wrong dilettantes can be when opining on matters in that field.

          Take a step back and consider what a hair-trigger reaction has resulted over a criticism of Miles Mathis. Except … I never actually criticized him. I made some observations. You provided some corrective information about one of those, and I am genuinely grateful. But when trivially reproducible observations are construed as criticisms, direct or implied, then there is another dynamic at work. And that’s the dynamic that is drawing my attention, and what I am pointing out to our other readers.

          You seem not to like my use of the word “enthusiast” or “acolyte” (which simply means “follower”). Well, I myself am a follower of Mathis. I check his website almost daily for updates, and if that’s not a follower, then I don’t know what is. I am also a fan, as is obvious from the fact that I link points in my writing to him, with full credit as is due; and I have commended his website to other people, selectively. But there remains a level of advocacy above my own, and I don’t know how else to label it except as “enthusiast.” If that word is unacceptable, please suggest another. “Disciple” comes to mind, but I sense negative connotations in that term, so I didn’t use it.

          Do I have misgivings about certain elements in the Mathis oeuvre? Yes. What are they? My own counsel shall I keep on these matters for now.

          What I will not respond positively to, though, is this Manichaean insistence that if I am not entirely for Mathis, I am against him. That dynamic in this thread is far more troubling than any quibbles I might have over any of his methods or conclusions.

          Josh, I would welcome you to email me privately to discuss the other assumptions you find faulty in my observations. I am glad to recant when I am wrong, and I have the power to delete my own comments if necessary.

          But for now I am finding the atmosphere in this comment thread to be getting a little … benauwd, my Dutch grandfather would say. I think it’s time for me to step away from this thread and get some air.


        3. With your reply to Josh bellow, you are backpedaling. Why?

          I never actually criticized him. I made some observations.

          Yes you did criticize him, big time. And you have managed to insult many of us here, who have read and at least partially understood his breakthrough science work. Let me briefly remind how you pulled it off.

          After quoting from MIT quacademic anonymous, you said:

          I have seen other instances (quite recently, in fact) where a “revolutionary mind” makes a compelling case by using words to mean something different from their conventional denotation within a field of specialty. The dilettantes won’t catch it, of course, and will applaud like a shelf of wind-up toy monkeys. It takes a real expert to catch the semantic shell-game that is being played.

          I am not the only one here who understood your above statement as directly applied to many of us as wind-up toy monkeys, who have read Mathis’ science opus and tried to understand it. It’s insulting, by the way, but that’s only after flushing MM away as a word-playing charlatan. By saying “other instances”, who as well play semantic games (like for instance JLB really does play), you directly applied this characteristic to Mathis. That’s an apparent and direct criticism, period. Furthermore, by suggesting the rest of us are monkeys, I assume you are looking down on us as not quite intelligent, as the word “monkey” usually suggests in terms of measurable intelligence, so a warm thank you for that as well. You may have as well thrown in some bananas while at it, it would keep us busy. With our hands full we’d be incapable of typing.

          There is no way of understanding your statement in some other alternative meaning. And backpedaling from it won’t help you even a bit, in fact, it makes you look indecisive, which is not really something to be particularly proud of as a true, authentic man.

          Liked by 1 person

        4. [For some reason I cannot reply in the comment chain at the appropriate point, so I’m replying here.]

          Maarten, I also address you as a friend/esteemed acquaintance, although we’ve never met in person. In fact, I’ve never met anyone who contributes or comments here in person. But there are some, yourself included, who I have corresponded with via e-mail. For those reading this who are unaware, there is a lively group e-mail correspondence between the blog’s contributors. Or at least there was when I was contributing. Nothing nefarious; rather something that is healthy and to be entirely expected. On the basis of that correspondence and what personal details I know of the contributors, I am of the opinion that they are all genuine, well-intentioned people. Not spooks. That includes Maarten. (My conclusions about Miles are also partially based on my e-mail correspondence with him, which is now going into its third year.)

          I think that many of MM’s supporters are ‘quick to anger’ over criticism of him because they assume that critics are shills whose aim is to discredit this iconoclastic thinker. From my experience trying to discuss his work in various forums, I do not think they are being paranoid about that. But they do not necessarily share my perspective about you and that may be enough to explain the hair trigger.

          Although I sort of agreed with your point in principle, I took issue with what you wrote less because it was an attack on Miles but more because it seemed to be casting aspersions on people like me, with the additional chutzpah of doing so from a place of ignorance. I think Vexman has clarified my point for you (thanks, Vex!), so I won’t belabor it, other than to say that the assumption I pointed to was that MM’s scientific work can be compared to or criticized on the same basis as the guy to whom you referred.

          Of course your criticism was implied not explicit, and despite being clear as day perhaps you did not intend what was implied. I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you go back and read it with an open mind, I think you’ll see clearly enough why it sounds like a rather disdainful dismissal. I won’t take you up on your kind offer to continue discussing this over e-mail. Not because I’m upset — just lack of time.


    2. Oops! So sorry, WE❤️MM. I missed them the first time around … the Langley-esque typos in the quotation. You’re just doing your job. Carry on …


      1. m.r.

        Thanks to Josh and you for the links.
        I was upfront in my post, “I’m assuming your comment …”, so it appears comical that you see “Langley-esque typos” in my quote.
        Please point them out and explain in detail the meaning(s) they have. It would be educational.


    3. So… Have you read his science/physics papers, Maarten?

      I disagree about one point in particular. As an “enthusiast” of Mathis, I don’t want a safe place to trade high-fives at all. I want to argue with and demolish the smallfolk, instead – those who would prefer Hawking and Feynman over Mathis, Einstein, and Tesla. I don’t need any high-fives from anyone – though my pal from the Mathis forum has helped me refine and correct a lot of my physics videos, and he’s about the only one has done so – also excluding Mathis in some cases. I find Nevyn to be of the utmost value and clarity, but not because he “high-fives” me, rather because of the opposite. He shows me where I’m wrong and tells me how to fix things.

      This was especially critical in my stacked spin videos, which required very precise retiming to “get it right”. Mathis couldn’t help. Nobody else on Earth could have, as far as I know, because Nevyn has gone even deeper into the topic than anyone else around. Except me, kinda trailing behind him but learning all the same.

      I also splatter Mathisian physics and ideas all over Facebook, and make just about ZERO friends doing so. But I have changed and opened hundreds of minds, and so it’s worth it for me.


        1. Ahh, but no. My question to you was simple and straightforward, but you dodged it anyway. If you haven’t read the papers and wish to pretend to insult me sideways for other comments I made, then you’re already playing catch-up and lucky for you I don’t mind the open goals.

          We agree on many things but then you pull this shady dodginess. If you’ve read all the papers I was talking about you would just say so instead of slinking around. It’s not a battle of words here on this site until you make it one. And when it is, you should at least come armed.


  17. I still remember very well how I went through all this. From Alex Jones to Alex “Ace” Baker and from David Icke to David McGowan. From there to the cluesforum. Then I googled cluesforum and found the fakeologist and there in the comment section our patient host Mark Tokarski. In the cluesforum I read about Miles Mathis for the first time. In between I went through the letsrollforums and some other less important blogs and always had some doubts. Especially the cluesforum which I in my Ace Baker time firstly rejected and then completely accepted only to come to the conclusion even the cluesforum is somehow weird and not quite honest. I exchanged some emails with Simon Shack and he disappointed me rejecting satellites as not possible. Fakeologist banned me for satellites. Here I’m allowed to occasionally comment on something I consider interesting. In Cluesforum I couldn’t even register. I also exchanged some emails with Miles Mathis, him always being polite and patient. Except after I asked him why he in his pi=4 paper uses the sides of a triangle to approximate the circle (or the curve in general) instead of the hypotenuse which obviously is the proper way, he simply stated I didn’t understand the paper. I like his non scientific papers a lot though.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I always enjoy your contributions here, and I would love to ask you more about what life was like in a divided Germany.

      I also concur with your assessment of Cluesforum: “somehow weird and not quite honest.” I can’t put my finger on it either. But the fact that they have hundreds of registered members but on many days fewer postings than this little blog is a curious fact.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. The late father of Simon Hytten (aka Shack) was an official with the United Nations. Simon’s brother Mario has known financial ties to the Bin Laden family (they financed his race car). Simon lives in a large house in Italy in which he rents out rooms to visiting employees of the European Space Agency and the Nuclear Research Institute. All of the above is admitted by Simon.

      If there aren’t enough red flags in the above 4 sentences I’m sure you can find plenty more by doing a little research. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The first 2 points I knew about, but what is the relevance of it? Are we responsible for the choices of our family members? Why?

        The last point I didn’t know, do you have a link where he admits that?

        But why is it a “red flag”? What better entrance to change people’s views is there than to actually be able to explain the two major hoaxes of our times; the Space Hoax and the Nuke Hoax in your own house?


        1. Gaiasspere – are you serious? Do you honestly think The Controllers would allow SIMon to release all that information about hoaxes unless they wanted it? If they didn’t want the word to get out, his important guests would no longer come around, his fancy house in Italy would be ransacked/damaged/destroyed/foreclosed, his name and forum would be outed as a shill or controlled opposition, he would be deemed a nutcase and/or “suicided”…you get the picture. Maybe the discussion should really be about WHY Simon, MM, Let’s Roll, Fakeologist and yes, even PoM, are being allowed to do all this without being shut down? Cui bono? Use your intuition!

          Now here’s a forum that was targeted and shut down, the Synchromysticsm forum; they’re still trying to raise funds to salvage their work. https://fundrazr.com/31C9Ta?ref=sh_36QBZ9_ab_9dP6jvIEiR39dP6jvIEiR3


          1. Cluesforum and Simon have been called “controlled opposition”, “shill”, “misdirection”, “nutcase” and what names more.

            Why would his house be demolished? What is your evidence that should happen?

            I think the “controllers” (I fear their control is very much less than people paint it) indeed don’t care a rat’s tail for what we write, think, discuss etc. here or there. They know they have the vast majority of mankind believing their stories, and that is enough for them. How many unique truth seekers are there? A couple of thousand, maybe 10? On a population of 7 billion (taking the official number seriously)… We pose no threat to anyone “up there”, believing we do imho is hybris and falls into the trap of “FEMA camp narratives” pushed to us by fearmongering conspiracy theorists, Alex Jones style.

            Look at the latest purge on YouTube (many accounts) and Blogger (Hoax Busters Call). It was haphazard, poorly directed or motivated and many channels still exist. No houses demolished, at least not that I know of.


          2. “I fear for bursting the bubble”, not fear as in real fear. Cannot edit it unfortunately.

            Also to answer the question “qui bono?” we need to know who “qui” are. Do you know that? Actually know for sure who they are? With all this fragmentation going on?


    3. “he simply stated I didn’t understand the paper”

      He may be right. I don’t know which pi=4 paper you’re referring to, but this is the most extensive one: http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html

      In the introduction he writes: “This is admittedly one of my most difficult papers to absorb. It alone is a huge red pill, and will start you on a journey far more fantastic and interesting than any Matrix movie. Beyond that, this paper cannot stand alone. It is a mistake to start with this paper. Those who do start with this paper will very likely be led to believe I am simply doing the calculus wrong. It is Newton and Leibniz and Cauchy and everyone since who has been doing the calculus wrong. I have earned the right to write this paper by first writing three important papers…. Those who don’t find enough rigor or math in this paper should read those three papers before they decide this is all too big a leap. I cannot rederive all my proofs in each paper, or restate all my arguments, so I am afraid more reading is due for those who really wish to be convinced. This paper cannot stand without the historical rewrite contained in those papers, and I would be the first to admit it.”

      So if you want to understand his argument about pi and have an answer to your question, you really have to first come to grips with the other three papers he mentions. I am only pointing this out if you are interested in trying to understand his reasoning. I do not want to open a discussion here about his papers on Pi.


      1. I heard the same from people claiming, they understood the relativity theory. My simple question stays unanswered: why approximate the circle or curve using the sides of the triangle instead of the hypotenuse?


    4. @B. Mueller I don’t believe you’re banned at fakeologist. Almost no-one is banned that I can recall. What username did you register as? We have many conflicting beliefs and tolerate many disparate views. There is no one view.


      1. I always use my name B. Müller. You will find Abiratos remark banning me for my satellites opinion in the comment section if you care. I don’t.


  18. thank you Maarten. When I think back at the life in the East block, it wasn’t that bad at all. We did not go to Mallorca on vacation but to Bulgaria (which has excellent and not over crowded beaches and very nice people), we occasionally had coca cola and other western “goodies”, we could watch many Hollywood blockbusters like Star Wars or Indiana Jones. The horror stories about Stasi and political persecution in general are IMO greatly exaggerated if true at all. I did not experience any of it but my family was politically not involved in anything. So what do I know? People can be happy with very little just knowing others don’t have more than they have. Live was more simple, people read books and played chess instead of watching hundreds of TV programs and playing silly computer games. But that is past and live today is not less enjoyable. At least to me.


  19. Rolleikin, did you read, what the former cluesforum member kentrailer wrote on letsrollforums? He then was banned there. His comments are still available. This entire Bin laden and Simon Shack connection just gives Simon credit as a real person. What if he is a SIMon only. The entire “conflict” between Simon and Phil Jayhan looks scripted.


    1. @B. Müller

      Having a father who was a U.N. official and a having a connection to the Bin Laden family gives Simon credit as a “real person”? What are you smoking?

      I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that the “conflict” between Jahan and Simon is scripted.

      BTW, it’s my opinion after reading Simon’s posts on CF for several years and listening to his podcasts on Fakeology (or whatever it’s called) that “Simon Shack” is a persona that has been played by more than one person.


      1. Speaking of Simon Shack I just noticed that Cluesforum has just yesterday declared him “the preeminent researcher in media fakery and propaganda, having proven to be a reliable, real, down-to-Earth person that has a humble and genuine interest in the truth.”

        This is as stated by his cohort hoi.polloi who evidently feels a need to remind us that Simon is “real.”

        We’re told Simon is about to release his masterpiece of astrophysical cosmology in which he will tell us what the solar system really looks like. I can’t think of a less qualified “person” to take on such a task but it should at least prove to be a good laugh.


      2. oh, I meant it is supposed to give him credit as real. Personally I think, when cluesforum started it was a real forum for a while maybe only to collect some content and then got under control somehow and now it looks more like a story board with some cartoon characters. Occasionally they let somebody register and contribute a little bit only to make him look foolish after a while. I’m looking forward to this “Simon book” revelation. Could be fun. Anyway, I emailed “Simon” a few times in the past and got answers which of course proves nothing. Once I asked him about an earthquake near Rom and he confirmed to me, he felt it. Just saying.


  20. As Miles says, this is only my opinion…
    What makes Miles Mathis most singularly real to me are the glimpses of a truly obsessive personality embedded in his papers that I cannot imagine a committee could replicate.
    As well, the unfinished quality of many of his works of art suggest a waxing and waning interest in one project or another, again a subtlety I think that a committee would find impossible to sustain convincingly.
    There’s also the grating “me first and only” boasting that is waaay to familiar as a truly human trait. Spooks try to seduce- MM just throws it at you and you either duck or brace for the catch. If you argue with him convincingly, or have something to add, you get a quick, terse response, sometimes positive and thankful, but right to the point. That, too, sounds to me like a real person who finds at this point in middle age he’s accepted responsibilities he could have never foreseen and is coping with the attention of enthusiastic strangers the way a guy who seems slightly reclusive would do. In and out.
    I’ve sent him a couple of links that he placed in addenda, but the way I see it, that doesn’t mean much as far as accumulating brownie points. You are only as good as your last email and that does not sound like a committee of misdirection experts trying to sell nutrition-free information like flat oith or Vril power or lizards whom speak the King’s.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Well said, Tyrone. I especially liked: “MM just throws it at you and you either duck or brace for the catch.”


  21. I hope somebody can pick up from here and share honest feedback and keep a respectful exchange on the following:
    (Also not alluding to the personnas of either conspicuous writers involved neither attempting to assess the contents of the papers for now)
    What do you readers make of the fact that MM’s JFK paper “resurfaced” (according to own writer – bottom of paper) on the Internet approx., roughly 3 months before JFKTV paper was realeased to the world?
    Is this just a happy coincidence? The stars up in the skies aligned? The paper was written in late 2007/ early 2008 and was dormant for about 6 years, Google -the most powerful search engine commercially known- rendered unable to find this page with this JFK paper and after that looong lapse (by Internet standards), voila!: Accessible to anybody with a slight curiosity in Conspiracy after 9/11, Aurora, Sandy Hook, etc.
    I bet my two nickels that a link came to you and you followed that link to MM’s paper. A link either from Google, from a website (like Gnostic Media, cluesforum, etc.), a blog, or somebody linking to it from an article or personal website… either way it came to you, you did not go to it on your own. It is not that you went directly and typed the url to his paper out of the blue.


    1. LR- Are you asking me if I found MM’s JFK paper before MM published it on his current Updates page? I can tell you truthfully that I came across MM’s JFK paper when he published it three years ago, yesterday, 3/18/15 on his Updates page- I was in the finishing stages of my final draft when he dropped his paper. If someone hacked my emails, which had most of the content of my book in various stages of development, well, that would be magical thinking on my part. I think it just a coincidence, though I still don’t know what to make of his claim that his paper was 8 years old and languishing in the bowels of the internet archives.
      Truthfully, I don’t care. This is neither a competition nor therapy. It is what it is. Stimulating.


      1. If anything, your JFKTV and Miles Mathis’s take on JFK are complementary. Or maybe better phrased complimentary… They sealed the case, like September Clues and the Vicsim Report together sealed 9/11. I enjoyed both your views on that day, a common psyop day in his-story (11/22 adding up to 33…):
        – Staten Island Ferry octopus hoax – admitted hoax (1963)
        – Death of Michael Hutchence – DCP (1997)
        – Baghdad DHL attempted shootdown – staged plane crash (2003)
        – RDS-37 – first 2-stage Soviet “hydrogen bomb” (1955)

        More 33 numerology (not complete yet, but we’re getting there):

        For links see Fakeopedia:
        – List of psyops
        – Jet rule
        – Nuke Hoax


      2. First, let me say I am grateful to MWM for the amounts of revelatory concepts, missing links recovered and dots he connected. No committee. Real man… but time is UP. If pertinent, I will expand on the matter.

        TM: Thanks for asking me to confirm the question. No, I am not asking if you found his paper or not before or after. You did what you did and that is fine as you said, it is not a competition. The concern I was sharing in phlegmatic spirit to everybody is regarding the claim that the hidden kings paper was long forgotten (or hidden) for about 7-8 yrs even took down (offline) as a favor and then resurfaced after such hiatus. Just think about that


  22. We all arrive at an understanding of ‘media fakery’ via different paths, and for many people a key stepping stone along that path is/was the work of Miles Mathis.

    Generally we tend to maintain a certain affinity for those who have in one way or another ‘opened our eyes’, and it may be difficult to remain entirely objective when assessing their work later down the line.

    This has been my personal experience: my gratitude towards the work of certain individuals has, both ‘consciously’ and ‘subconsciously’ (in the loose sense of the terms), led me to be more forgiving when their work has later revealed itself to be less then exemplary.

    With the exception of his paper on the Cavendish experiment, I have had scant exposure to Mathis’ work until relatively recently. A number of PoM regulars have recently joined my site and several of them have spoken highly of Mathis’ material (and/or its impact upon them). Therefore I have been trying to engage more with both PoM and Mathis’ work.

    If you have not already done so, I highly recommend checking out Mathis’ paper on the Cavendish experiment. In 2015 I found it to be the only comprehensive analysis/review of the scientific breakthrough in question available at the time. For the sake of brevity I will try to condense my own take on Mathis’ review down to a single paragraph:

    I find (found) it rather astonishing that an intelligent person could study the Cavendish experiment, and understand the concepts/claims involved, and then conclude that it is a plausible method for determining the mass of not only the earth but every major object in the ‘solar system’.

    If you are interested to learn more about this little-known but highly-important ‘scientific experiment’, I provide a detailed analysis in a video embedded on this page (available publicly, no membership necessary):


    The 40-minute video at the bottom of that page also goes into some detail concerning my 2015 review of Mathis’ paper on Cavendish.

    Recently on my site we conducted a roundtable conversation focused on Miles Mathis and related topics. It is only available to Full Members of the site but I will be happy to share it with PoM regulars at no cost. Just email me and let me know that you read this post at PoM and I will send you the link to the two-hour conversation (which featured at least one other regular reader of this site).

    I look forward to reading more of the comments in this thread. It has been illuminating to say the least. Thank you.


  23. I just read Miles’ last paper about “abnormalization”. Miles pretends to be debunking some pseudo-critic but what he really does the entire time is confirming the ideas, there are greedy and powerful people out there who are after our money, that there are big companies making big profits from our misery, that there are bad things going on and we must fight against them, etc. That is not the way I see it. IMO the world is getting better not worse, our life is better than our parents life was and it applies to all people not only those from some rich and “developed” countries. I think, what TPTB do is to give all people equal chances to make a living and it means, the rich ones have to share with the poor ones. There is no way around it. That’s why China is producing the majority of what I call “low level goodies” and which can be bought around the world in almost every store. That’s why eastern countries in Europe build “German” cars now. That’s why there are so many third world foreigners everywhere, call them migrants or fugitives.


    1. You’re simply not paying attention if you think TPTB are trying to make the world a better place. The death tolls alone should convince you otherwise. The pollution alone should convince you. The deforestation should. The policy of covering all Earth in concrete should. The theft, rapine, and murder of all kinds of people should.

      “Love level goodies” do not make the world a better place. German cars do not make the world a better place. We’re locusts and nothing our culture offers makes the world a better place.

      And you missed the entire point of his latest paper, with that response.


      1. Jared, all those things exist only in the news. I see no pollution, the Main river in Frankfurt is as clean as never before. I see no deforestation and I don’t believe in the “death tolls”, whatever you mean. I’m having two family members who are close to 100 years old now. Still counting. Looks like you have fallen for the fear porn TPTB is pouring over us every day via “The News”.


        1. I have a friend who worked with uranium on nuclear triggers years ago. Now she gets cancer lesions on her scalp and face every few months. This is not news report pear porn. I have been working with a doctor on symptoms of gut microbe disbiosys, which is not only in me but throughout her full range of medical patients and pretty much everyone. This is not the fear porn found in the news. It is real. Deny it at your own risk and the risk to your families.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. there are no nukes dude. Get real. What your friend has is probably caused by heavy medication. Your microbe disbiosys sounds to me like an opportunistic infection which is a bacterial infection which takes over when the immune functions are down, when you have an immune defect or an immune deficiency. Are you taking any medication? Then stop it. It is the reason for your health problems not pollution.


          2. RE: B. Muller
            You are apparently in Europe where glyphosate pollution has not yet pervaded the entire food supply. Get your denial in now while you still can.
            You should look into cognitive dissonance and consider whether you are really immune to the effects. It is looking to me like your mind is not entirely clear.


          3. Re: B. Muller

            Interesting how you can deliver a diagnosis from your remote location, without medical tests, patient history, or really even the slightest clue. I did consult with my doctor in order to get some actual lab work done so that there was at least a chance for an accurate diagnosis.

            I was convinced by Mathis that some of the nuclear detonations were faked. But I have some personal experience with the toxicity of some nuclear substances. My family has been in the market for mineral samples for many years. A man had a very hot sample of uranium ore kept in a cabinet next to his reading chair. He died of cancer. The police hazardous materials team were glad to have it to be used for training purposes. The Geiger counter clicked next to it showing that there were a whole lot of ionization events occurring in the vicinity of that sample. There are a whole lot of people who get cancer, counted by epidemiologists as a “cancer cluster” who have been exposed to this sort of toxic material. Deny it at your own risk. Closing your mind to the evidence may not be enough to save your life.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Alan, radioactive minerals do exist, there is no doubt about that. That doesn’t make nukes real however. It is not “certain detonations” that are faked, the whole concept of fission and fusion is magic.

            But you’re right about B. Müller, I cringed before when reading the “from the comfy couch” comments on “the world”. The hilarious claim “blood transfusions don’t exist” comes to mind. If she doesn’t believe in deforestation, book a ticket to Brazil and look at how huge parts of the Amazon rainforest are turned into cattle ranches. And then come back with some real knowledge.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. Well it must be nice to live in Frankfurt, then, but over here in the US it’s a complete shit-show. I live halfway between Seattle and Mt. Rainier, the largest volcano in the contiguous states here, in the Cascade Mountain foothills. These foothills have been massively logged and deforested, to make way for expansion and to of course feed the lumber industry.

          And almost every river here is so polluted, to drink it would put you in the hospital. The Green River isn’t too bad, you can swim in it – the same Green River that the Green River Killer (Gary Ridgeway, a fake op most likely) used to hide the dead prostitutes. So we’re swimming in dead prostitutes in that one, but in all the others its chemicals and fertilizers and all manner of silliness. You can only really fish closer up to the mountains. And that’s just semi-locally.

          When I visit the Puget Sound, which is the huge body of water adjacent to Seattle and Tacoma, the shores are covered in garbage and there’s a lot floating everywhere too. The plant life has changed since my childhood, along these shores. Only foxgloves are prolific now, which are slightly toxic themselves. But the lupines and zinnias and celosias are nowhere to be seen, until you go fifty miles inland towards the mountains.


          1. I would not drink the water from Main river either, yet still it is considered to be clean and there are fishes living in it now, which wasn’t the case 30 years ago. The water cleans itself on the earth (sand) on the ground. I’m not saying there is no pollution at all, but some amount of pollution can be easily taken care of by nature itself. As some amount of poison in our bodies can also be taken care of. As some amount of deforestation can be of no importance to the nature. All agrarian fields we use to feed humans were forests first. You said yourself, you can fish in the river but in some other place. So it can’t be that bad. I think, there was a heavy pollution of the rivers back in the 70-s, that’s what really caused Ebola and other “diseases”. The chemical industry uses “rare earths” for its processes, which hast to be collected from many places and which when concentrated become very poisonous. Used rare earths had to be spread again back into the nature. They used rivers for it once which didn’t work and people got sick. Now they probably spread this substances via what we call chemtrails. That’s my opinion on the topic. I think, that’s what TPTB really work on, to create a long term process allowing to feed all humans and not to destroy the nature unnecessary and it is not an easy task. At least I observe a positive progress in it.


    2. Yes, let the good times roll. We will see what happens when the families achieve their demographic goals in the white countries. How these countries will look in the future? What type of laws will they have? Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore and New Orleans are now much better, their problems are just an illusion.
      Yes, we can make the case that technology improved many things. But life is more than digital goods and other material trinkets. Actually we discussed in previous posts about the lack of nutrition in our food. We can even talk about the fact that important things like home ownership is probably in decline. Not to mention that people had houses with gardens and animals, so they could sustain themselves. Even technology can be a great trap. Instead of owning the technology, the technology can own us (and the technology is mostly owned by the big families). Let’s see if China implements its Social Credit System that uses “big data”. How good will the families be when they achieve almost total centralization?
      You can still try to work on your own projects and try to achieve independence (economic, philosophical etc). You can work towards happiness and well-being. You should accept that there are things that you cannot change. But I would be careful with the “happy goy” approach to life.


  24. Did Maarten censor some posts? I checked but it doesn’t seem like he deleted any of mine, and he definitely couldn’t keep up with the banter end of things. I don’t come here to cut people in half mentally but dish out as good as I get, without being too predictable.

    Thank you for your comments on my vids and stuff, too. I also don’t come here for accolades but it’s nice to be noticed and maybe even appreciated. I’d love feedback on those if you like, always trying to refine the models to make more sense or be more accurate.

    Feel free to join our research on the http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/forum site if you like.


    1. Saw this on the Texas package bombs, quoted from the “deplorable” reporter Jim Stone:
      “New rules to soon be announced for use of postal service:

      You must be 21 years old to mail a package.
      You must pass a background check to mail a package.
      You must pass an additional psychiatric evaluation to mail a package.
      If you are found guilty of any crimes, you cannot mail a package.
      If you have ever had any type of domestic dispute, you cannot mail a package.

      Packages kill. One, in Austin Texas this morning, killed someone, and injured another. Packages must be regulated today, not tomorrow, for the good of the children.”

      Liked by 2 people

    1. Apparently another probable fake school shooting in Maryland.

      Could there be competing Intelligence agencies/peerage families trying to outdo each other? Or maybe they are trying a new tactic – a “combo” school shooting/serial bombing event. If the public is not becoming more aware of this chicanery, maybe at least they are becoming desensitized to this stupidity.


  25. An ounce of estimation is worth a pound of speculation. What follows is about prototyping the project, not the person.
    MWM (b. 9/18/63). Note the date. MWM, NYFS: Not your father’s spook. A spook for the 2007-2017 decade. A new kind of spook, to predate the Third Industrial Revolution, where the physical and digital world will converge. The project is winding down. Some of you will not accept this even if the Agency comes in and released a note saying: “He is our guy”. You can ignore this at your own peril, you are free to do so… & you do not have to come back and reply to me. I am not trying to persuade anybody.
    It is dangerous to have a theory before you have the facts. Skeptic? Do your own research. It is hard work.


    1. I’ve done my own research. It’s how I found this site, and others similar. I can ignore your accusation because of this research, because Miles physics hasn’t been done by anyone else. If it had been, wouldn’t NASA and SpaceX be able to figure out that Pi=4 in kinematics? Or the orbits and why they’re elliptical? Or that you can’t ever have a breathable atmosphere on Mars? Or three hundred other questions he answers that the mainstream can’t?


    2. Mathis goes against “time is an illusion”, hyperdimensions, the universe is a hologram etc. These are things promoted in this era of digital convergence, where they will want to sell you various types of virtual worlds. Even if he is 99% wrong about his physics, he promotes real mechanics.
      Lawrence, can you be more clear about Mathis. I can at least point out why Mathis resonates with me and why I believe he is mostly correct. Yes, I can point out a few topics that I believe are important and Mathis doesn’t talk about them (like demographic changes). But it would be ridiculous to expect him to cover every topic that I believe to be important. I also don’t agree with some of his conclusions, but I also see an evolution in his thoughts (which is a good sign) . I can also say that his evolution makes sense to me.
      Can you talk more about the project and maybe the relationship between the project and Mathis (the project that “is winding down”). I assume that it is something to do with digital converge. Maybe you can talk about Mathis in general, but be more specific. Some of your comments are similar to the oracular statements from Delphi.


      1. Ehm, no. I am not talking about outer space, holograms, hyperspace or hyperloops. I was referring to the 3d-printing phenomenom. Also, your digital life and your phisical life. Also, the zero marginal cost societies. How so? Just a pair of examples: Almost anybody can now write a book and publish it in electronic form. Marginal cost of making an e-book? Near zero. Why do some musicians release free and downloadable albums now? Because you following them and attending their concerts is way more valuable to them in the long term. Also, you can attend several MOOC in almost any area of your interest at a very low cost, some of them even for free. The prototyping of the project brings to fruition an exercise in research and imagination. Not suitable for a comment section, but also not sure I want to release it through this channel. I will let out pieces though, like the comment I started above. Feel free to expand on it. You can heed it or ignore it, but it will make you think.


    1. Hawking was a just another artificially-promoted fearmonger, gaining lots of publicity as a “genius” and selling tons of books while spreading the fear virus among the unthinking and walking dead. “You’re all going to die!!”

      Oh yeah, he died at the age of 76 on March 14 — the same day Albert Einstein was born. Pi day! lol!


  26. “allow me one last general question that I do not want a reply to.” – so why ask it in the first place?

    I haven’t read that thread before, the correct link is this:

    And I see a lot of in-fighting going on. Well, that is what happens on the internet and more so with controversial.

    To suggest there is a “circle j*rk” here doesn’t apply to me, I had my outbursts with certain people here too. But learned a lot from the writers here as well, and that’s far more important.

    What this have to do with Miles Mathis escapes me (other than his wise decision not to engage in blogging, commenting and other activities that are not research), but it’s a “done deal” for you anyway…


  27. Thank you for the announcement, Mark and safe travels.

    What has been remarked before, that Miles Mathis “doesn’t look into current matters”, which is untrue seeing his coverage of current events, yet looks into historical and lesser known ones I see as his big strength. It is through understanding the past, the blueprints for hoaxing and staging in the present.

    It gives the framework, the bigger picture, the ways those families operate, how long they are already active and that sets the stage for today.

    I find it a relief he is not as many others, who cover present events only. What is the value of 10 different accounts on “Vegas” or “Parkland”, if just with 1 or 2, you get the drill (pun intended)? That time and energy is better spent on the Cru(el)sades, the French “Revolution” and Billy the Kid, as prescriptive programming for the present day thug scares and “terrorist” plots.

    I am very grateful to Miles Mathis opening my eyes on the extent of staging stories, a huge development in my process of awakening.


    1. Yes, I agree with you about the value of MM’s work in revealing the extent of our scripted, delusional and fake culture. And it’s totally OK that he spends little time delving into current hoaxes, as his followers are already aware of their absurdity. I just don’t agree with his conclusion that it’s all about money. He repeatedly identifies the (((chosen ones))) and their intermarriage and connections to The Families, then says he’s doesn’t have a problem with (((them))). He stops short of going any further than that, and neglects to even speculate on the WHY of it all (beyond profit), and HOW it is all connected to the endless array of “projects” (the WHAT, much of which he does not write about) currently being run. Lots of milk, with a little meat, IMO. But that’s fine, I just know it’s time to move on now.


  28. “Adiós compadres”, “Satan Inside”, McCool, J-Scores, “Schiffer brains”, “High, Wide and Handsome” and now “Wind-up toy monkeys”… you guys never dissapoint. That’s what makes one a follower.


  29. OT: Consider that the Earth is fixed, stationary and does not move in any way (except for Earthquakes and such), and is the center of all creation, and the Sun and other celestial bodies move about the Earth [I believe this is actually the reality – and I’m a scientist/engineer with Ph.D. believing this] – the diametric opposite of what we all have been taught since we were children, what are the philosophical, intellectual, metaphysical, religious, moral and psychological – and even political, implications of this astounding realization? Think about this for a moment and the ramifications.

    By removing Earth from the motionless center of the Universe, these Masons, or whoever, have moved us physically and metaphysically from a place of supreme importance to one of complete nihilistic indifference. They want us to feel alone, fearful of the unknown and insignificant – It makes the masses easier to control, exploit and manipulate, so they think. [I believe this was the goal and intention of the “work” of Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, et al. and their ilk.]

    If the Earth is the center of the Universe, then the ideas of God, creation, and a purpose for human existence are resplendent. But if the Earth is just one of billions of planets revolving around billions of stars in billions of galaxies, then the ideas of God, creation, and a specific purpose for Earth and human existence become highly implausible.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Wallace, and anyone else, Simon Shack is about to release his book about his TychoS geo-heliocentric model of the skies. I am thrilled to read everything, but for now he has a separate website where he already lists some chapters. I have passed on some questions to him, which he answered, and when time comes will link his work on my (fresh, just started 2 days ago) blog.

      For anyone interested in an alternative cosmological view:

      Liked by 1 person

      1. hmm…Simon wants 25 EUR per year for reading his revelations. This alone makes me a little suspicious . From the overview I don’t even understand how it is supposed to be in the universe. What is the red planet, the Earth is circling around? Is this Mars? Is he claiming, the Earth circles around the Mars and the Sun circles the Earth and Mars? Do I have to pay 25 Eur to get the explanation how he comes to this conclusion? And he claims to explain some relativity theory issues and mentions Sirius. Did he ever observed Sirius himself? Or any cosmic object at all except what is visible with bare eye? I doubt it. It is what I suspected would be. A lot of complicated crap, some naive Simon Shack fans will claim to understand. The same thing, Miles Mathis delivers with his scientific papers. At least he does not want any money for it. And you have to register first, etc. So it’s simply a honeytrap.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. A mere 25 euros for a book and a free model to use after 5 years of hard work, but it is waived away by the hand even before reading it by Prof. Dr. B. Müller, who claims physically impossible things exist (man-made satellites) but without any evidence claims blood transfusions don’t or that there is no pollution (go visit a Chinese city or stroll along the shores of the Caspian Sea in Azerbaijan). Sirius is the brightest star in the sky but you think Simon hasn’t observed it? Seeing the “red spot” on Jupiter’s surface, are you serious? Even with a normal telescope you cannot see that, and yes I have seen Jupiter through a telescope.

          What a clown you are.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Maybe you remember the latest discussion on Cluesforum about satellites (Oct 2017 and later) where Simon presented my pictures of the ISS and member notrappaport explained why “it” has to fly on an altitude of some 400km. Also there are TV-satellites and other geostationary objects which can also be photographed. The Big Red Spot on Jupiter moves quite fast and you have to know the time when it is visible and have some practice in observing such objects. The details are sometimes not easy to spot. I suppose “Simon” is no more a person but a front of shills now. Sirius as a double star can only be seen in a telescope and it is not that easy. “Simon” claims the Sun (a star) and Mars (a planet) are virtually identical to a double star system far far away. How stupid he thinks we are? All that Tycho idea looks very flat earth-ish to me. Actually Mars is quite far away now. You won’t see any details in a telescope. A couple of years ago I saw the white pol on Mars. The distance to Earth vary between 50 and 400 million km. How can that be if the Earth is circling around Mars, as Simon claims?


          2. gaiassphere, have you ever been in China or Azerbaijan? Probably not. I was in Hong Kong once on my way to New Zealand and the City didn’t look especially dirty to me. Just like every big city I have visited. The streets were better than in Frankfurt actually. A friend of us married a Chinese woman and moved permanently to Peking a few years ago and he also does not complain about pollution. As for Azerbaijan, a colleague from the bank I’m working for will indeed go there in early summer (on business) and probably see the Caspian Sea. I’ll ask him.


          3. I haven’t been to China, no, but friends of mine have been and lived there. The smog is ridiculous. I have been to Tehran which is just as bad. I also have been to Azerbaijan, yes. But what do you care? You seem comfy with a nihilistic “what I don’t see doesn’t exist” worldview, while at the same time pushing mainstream lies about “satellites”. Just how do you think you can photograph a geostationary satellite (something that physically cannot exist in the first place), the size of a car, at allegedly 35,000 km distance?


          4. gaiassphere, TV-satellites can be photographed using long time exposure (a few minutes at least) on dark nights. You have to point the camera roughly in the direction the dishes in your neighborhood are pointing or where the geostationary orbit at your place is supposed to be. Use a zoom of about 100-200mm. After a few minutes the stars become lines and satellites visible as dots. Then move the camera slightly to the left or right and repeat. You will see the same dots on other place on your photo. Or just google. There are many excellent photos online.


          5. The only possibility for that so-called geostationary (physical bollocks; the center of Earth is not the center of gravity) satellite to show up as a light, is if it is reflecting sunlight.

            “On a dark night”, that satellite is in the shadow of Earth (the Sun is directly opposite where you stand) and thus cannot reflect any sunlight.

            The myth of “satellite dishes need to be pointed exactly at the “satellite”, otherwise it doesn’t receive a signal is debunked with just one look from my balcony where the satellite dishes of the houses below are not at all perfectly aligned, with an estimated up to 40 degrees (!!) difference even (and yes the same company):

            Liked by 1 person

          6. Here where I am, some companies have repeaters on nearby mountains, so some of the dishes are aimed there instead of the southern sky.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. A geostationary orbit is 22,236 miles high, or say 44 thousand in diameter. The Earth’s diameter is around 7926 miles, so the shadow of the earth covers one location in the geostationary orbit for just a little over two hours.


    2. I am not sure that the size of the universe changes anything. You can have a god or gods and purpose no matter how big the universe is. Some people already believed that god is infinite in many aspects. So you are already insignificant with respect to god. What about our insignificance with respect to time. If the universe is not eternal, at least god must be eternal or at least perpetual (with a beginning but no end).

      I believe that a pantheistic view is closer to the truth, and I also don’t have a problem with an eternal and infinite universe. But eternity and infinity is beyond my comprehension.

      Most people don’t care about the size of the universe, and most are probably not nihilistic. Many believe that they follow the word of god and these people are actually easier to control. The fear comes from the fear porn: terrorism, nukes, Satanic rituals, white supremacism and what not. Maybe sometimes they mention an asteroid, but this is not directly connected to the size of the universe.


    3. If you mount a gyroscope in a friction-less gimble, then it retains it’s angular momentum without precessing. A gyroscope tends to keep to the same axis and on the same plane of rotation. The same relative to what? Why does the gyroscope with the axis at right angles to the Earths axis rotate as the Earth turns if the Earth is still?

      The same considerations apply to the Foucault pendulum

      Why assume the Earth is the center of the universe, when instead you might assume that you, personally are the center of the universe ?


      1. alanackley, it doesn’t really matter if you have a theory on it or not, the gyroscope will still work. The Foucault pendulum is an easy test to demonstrate, the earth is moving (rotating), which you can very easy observe on other planets too. Jupiter rotates visibly within an hour or so. Just observe the Big Red Spot for a while. Or his moons change visibly their position through the night. Which can also easily be observed. I saw that many times and it’s fascinating. You can even see the shadows of the moons on Jupiter, but for this you’ll need a telescope and some experience in watching such things. Even the sun is rotating. Sunspots change their position and form from day to day. I saw that many times too.


        1. I certainly agree that the Earth and other planets are rotating. What I was curious about was how one might imagine they are not given these easy proofs.

          It does seem so easy for people to believe this or that and state opinion as if it were certain truth. So rare to find people skilled to say only what they really know.

          Then there is the strange and troll-like skill to misconstrue what people say. Does this skill serve some purpose in evolution?


  30. ” I suppose “Simon” is no more a person but a front of shills now.”

    OK maybe I did ban you back in the day.

    Liked by 3 people

  31. From what bodily orifice did Simon pull his Tychos BS? He has no education in anything remotely related to either physics or astronomy or any related field and has never even owned a telescope.

    Shack also pushes the “rockets don’t work in a vacuum” nonsense which was the predecessor to the flat earth crap.

    To me it seems Simon’s only purpose is to make those who genuinely research media and historical fakery look like idiots.


  32. ROLLEIKIN is just a butt-hurt spook caught with its pants down – Go crawl under the rock were you came from with the other immoral and criminal degenerates.


  33. We have about 12 hours left in this comment thread, but “I ask that commenters here be respectful. This is not a venue for personal attacks.” is what Mark said in the OP.

    “Rockets do not work in a vacuum” is a completely wrong statement (though I reacted in that Cluesforum thread and was the first one to move from a purely mechanical to the correct chemical-mechanical point).

    A – the mainstream doesn’t say it is a vacuum (0 pressure), they claim it is 10^-16 bar
    B – it is not about “just a vacuum”, it is about an infinite low-pressure environment

    That said, what Simon posted there with lots of contributions by others, in Boëthius’s thread is right.

    There has been no experiment done to replicate the -alleged- conditions of Space, because that is impossible to test on Earth. So we are led to believe that people went up there (after sending dogs and monkeys) without any testing?

    Anyone who has worked in engineering knows the real world doesn’t work like that. Apollo 2-12 was all successful. Such a success ratio in the most hostile and unknown environment thinkable is a laugh. A movie script. Don’t believe me, listen to everyone who has worked in engineering, IT and related subjects. They will tell you trial-and-error is the common way. Not for NASA; no trials (impossible to replicate what they claim Space is) and 0 error… That is Hollywood storytelling, not a real-life experience.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. This one had me in stitches. You are 100% correct that rockets can work in a vacuum. But that does not imply that NASA is to be trusted or believed. There is no need to tie those two things together. I am glad Mark decided to close this increasingly absurd comment thread.

    Yes, Shack is definitely on a mission to discredit the media fakery line of business. But he’s also trying to misdirect truth-seekers into fantasy land: https://pieceofmindful.com/2017/02/01/the-curious-case-of-the-jerusalem-truck-attack-notes-on-operation-fantasy-land/


  35. It is not a “non sequitur” and does not avoid anything, it actually expands on an unaddressed (avoided) topic.

    “a rocket produces its own gas.”

    Under the alleged conditions of Space (P~0, T~3 K), there is no gas. Everything becomes solid or superfluid (H, He). Making the whole idea of “rockets in Space” a physical-chemical impossibility.


  36. … based on what? Something Boethius said?

    As I said above it can be easily proven in the real world that rockets do not depend on atmosphere to produce thrust.


    1. No, based on middle school science; look up a phase diagram for extremely low P and T and you see it; no gases.

      And what you say doesn’t mean they can work in the alleged conditions of Space, that are untestable on Earth by definition anyway.

      It’s magic, just as the Nuke Hoax. But keep believing it, if you wish.


  37. Gas or not, mass is expelled by a rocket which produces thrust in the opposite direction regardless of atmospheric conditions.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. In this quote …
    … Boethius claims that rockets work with “gas pressure”. He says,
    “The reason space travel is not possible is because the systems we claim to use to propel a rocket through space operate on gas pressure and there is no gas pressure in space.”

    But rocket propulsion has nothing to do with “gas pressure.” It has to do with moving a mass in one direction resulting is a force produced in the opposite direction. It has nothing to do with gas pushing against anything.

    I’m not saying that the space program isn’t fake. IT IS FAKE but it’s not fake because “rockets can’t work in space.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. There are indeed more physical arguments against the whole idea:

      1 – allegedly the mysterious force of gravity (that I accept exists, but stay open to other possibilities) holds us on Earth. Gravity is based on mass (m) and acceleration (g). Now, they claim we can escape Earth by reaching an “escape velocity” of 11 km/s. How can a velocity counter an acceleration (v^2)? From the basic mathematical foundation that doesn’t make any sense.

      2 – even if you could get a rocket in Space, the alleged condition make it impossible to survive there. 50% of the rocket is lit by the Sun, has very little possibility to radiate away heat (though that is what they claim) and will heat up to 300+ degrees (C or F, not K). The other side is in the shadow and surrounded by Space with a temperature of 3 K. So we have a 600 degree temperature difference of a cilinder made from metals. We have no tests that actually show that is possible. At very low temperatures metals become very brittle, at high temperatures they become ductile. So one side should deform, the other side just crumble to pieces.

      A so-called “debunking” of that has been presented by shills online, that the rocket itself transfers the received heat on the Sun side by conduction to the stone cold side. The problem is; material properties depend on the temperature that material has. And with extremely low temperatures the thermal conductivity drops dramatically too.


  39. I agree that rocketry is a lousy way to travel through space and might only work for very short distances — IF you could get the thing out there at all.

    I also agree that it may be impossible to even launch a rocket into space with enough fuel and whatnot to then go anywhere worth going.

    Rocket propulsion would probably only be useful for positional changes of a craft (rotation, etc) or very short movements.

    Actually sending a human to another planet with rockets and returning and landing safely on Earth seems to me to be totally impractical, especially when you consider all the provisions, fuel and protection from radiation, meteors, etc that would have to be included in the rocket.

    More details on this can be found here:

    This is not my site. The site owner once posted on Cluesforum but was banned for posting factual material regarding physics and the impossibility of rocket space travel.


    1. I have a personal experience of watching the assembly and launch of a small rocket model, approximately 1,5m in overall size, which has reached the altitude of almost 2 kilometers before its engines ran out of solid fuel. So I was curious enough about this rocket business to have asked Miles for an advice about it. Miles, too, had thought that low Earth orbit could be made possible to reach using the rocket propulsion.

      That was in late 2016 and I still think low orbit flight can be made possible using a rocket. The issue of dubious and sometimes hilarious televised videos of this process creates further confusion, as it proves rather the opposite – that the space rockets exist only in fairytales. So, in my mind, I see an absurd duality – rockets as presented on TV so far cannot reach deep space (i.e. the Moon) as there are numerous logical reasons against it, but on the other hand I know an object can accelerate to a great speed if a rocket engine is installed on its tale.

      Whether rockets can move (accelerate/decelerate) in space using this very same (primitive) physics principle is a tricky question since we cannot replicate the exact conditions in order to test it. It’s confusing, especially if one has already understood the improbability of walking the Moon as it was televised to us. So bear in mind that it was most probably done this way on purpose, since creating confusion represents the best weapon against clear thoughts and any real progress. Maybe PTB just wanted to let us know that they have already developed the proper technology to perform space travel and have used that as a fact, while wrapping the same fact in nonsense we are all familiar with from the analysis of Apollo program. “Give them a snippet of truth and hide it within the piles of lies and manipulation” -> isn’t that the modus operandi going on for centuries already? It would be reasonable to believe that the same MO was applied to this section of reality.

      I think it is possible and probable that the proper space travel technology already exists. Most likely, we have no clue how to notice it and have been left in the dark. Well, almost in the dark – they illuminate our mind with false pictures, lies and silly ideas, while it’s reasonable to expect we have been misguided, lied to and manipulated into believing utter nonsense.

      Fun fact – I got banned from Cluesforum for saying this.


      1. Vexman, when I was young I learned about rockets in therms like “the first space velocity”, which means the velocity required to reach a permanent orbit. We also speak of “shooting a rocket into space”, right? IMO, all it takes is to create a rocket powerful enough to reach a certain speed at the start and the rest will follow automatically incl. orbiting. The engine does not have to power the rocket anymore, therefore does not have to work in a vacuum, etc. If you can calculate precisely the power of your rocket engine, you can exactly calculate the high your rocket will reach. A rocket never “flies” perpendicular to the earth because the earth is rotating, etc. I’m convinced that this “first space velocity” formula already contains everything which is needed to put an object into permanent orbit. All rocket videos are probably fake, so we don’t really know, how a starting rocket looks like, but it does not prove, this is not possible. And as I mentioned several times, there are TV satellites, which I know since the 80-s where there wasn’t any transponder antennas everywhere. We watched satellite TV in the middle 80-s in Eastern Germany. And our Russian friends did the same. And the ISS is definitely flying in 400km altitude. So satellites do exists and somehow can be shot into orbit.


  40. gaiassphere, you talk a lot of crap here. You cannot even distinct between the center of a sphere and a center of gravity. This entire talk about rockets working with pressure or friction instead of propulsion is flat earth level. Not everything we’re learning in physics is wrong. Get some education first then come back.

    Liked by 1 person

  41. a firework will fly in the horizontal position, where it cannot push itself up from anything, or started in some height without anything under it. Which a simple proof for propulsion in rocket engines.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.