The Tychos …

B. Müller gave me permission to reprint his comment from a post down below regarding Simon Shack and his new book, The TYCHOS, The True Model of Our Solar System. I am curious the discussion this book will draw, and am keeping my distance, that is, I do not trust Simon Shack, but have never been vocal about it. It is my view that he has drawn interest from some of the very best thinkers in our community, but that his high-profile and the fact that he was able to make a major motion picture* make him at least suspect.

His book is five years in the works, he says. That does it no credit in my view, as just about every book in history or current events at Barnes and Noble is years in the making, and none of them are reliable. I am further suspicious as at the MM conference in 2016, he said that he thought Shack was going to turn out to be an “anti”, that is, one who gathers up support for all the right reasons, and then discredits it. He thought that Shack would eventually be a flat-earther, and that is not far off the mark in my view.

There is, or was, a lively discussion in the works at Fakeologist, but it ended at 24 comments.

Here is B. Müller, just to get the ball rolling:

I’m reading this weird Tycho topic on the cluesforum and it becomes more and more obvious to me, that this is flat earth in new clothes. Also simon, hoi, nonho, etc. are all the same person/team just talking to themselves. Simon repeats himself constantly stating his Tycho model is so simple and obvious at the same time posting complicated graphics and drawing weird conclusions. That suggests if you don’t get it you must be stupid. He admits, that he is using a flash-simulation software which he considers to be very accurate instead of making some observations in nature. Maybe one simple example can demonstrate how fake all this is: many astronomers use telescopes fixed properly on concrete foundations positioned to the celestial pole which on the north half is very near the polar star. They’ve adjusted their mountings (tripods) very accurate to the celestial pole to be able to rotate it with the stars (against the rotation of the earth) and make long time exposures. They don’t touch their mountings any more for many years. The polar star appears year for year, day for day always on the same position, only rotating slightly through the night because it is not exactly on the celestial pole but the pole itself stays constant. This alone definitely proves the huge distance between the Earth and the stars. I see the polar star always on the same position from my roof terrace. My mounting has fixed legs and elevation and I only have to adjust it to the left or right side to point it to the celestial pole.

*It has been pointed out to me, accurately, that September Clues is hardly a “major motion picture.” What I should have said was that of the genre, 9/11 expose’ films (Loose Change and Ace Baker’s Psyopera are the only other ones that comes to mind – it has been a long time ago), I considered it the most credible. Anyway, read AB’s remarks and my response here.

126 thoughts on “The Tychos …

  1. On MM paper where he severed links with cluesforum:

    “I have never attacked Shack, his site, or the film, having a link to it and recommending it for many
    years. Therefore, any rational person would expect he would wish to form some sort of alliance with
    me or at least keep his mouth shut

    The only substantive reason I have seen on that site is that some fear I am Jewish, or a protector of the
    Jews”. Right. A portrait painter and theoretical scientist becomes a protector of the Mods. (Brief digression: From now on, I will refrain to call them Jws, instead, I will call them Mods, Masters of Disaster. This to remove any association with the jewish culture)

    Really??? Some others, even more rational, would question why he would wish to form an alliance. Distrust could be both ways and even then it would not demerit either meterial.
    Does that mean, he would conisder an alliance with the up and coming soon “Wind-up toy monkeys” blog site? Based on the fact he would be eulogized at such a fictional site (yet) by his acolytes?

    Me thinks the wisest man knows better, he treats both derision and praise equally.
    Fair is fair. “To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing” –Elbert Hubbard

    My advice to everybody: Don’t be the chess piece. Be the chess player. Think for yourself.


  2. I’ll try to explain, what that Tycho topic is all about. The less Simon friends understand of it, the harder they will defend it. We know there are galaxies in the form of whirls. We can photograph them. Andromeda is one of such galaxies. To the bare eye it looks like a foggy star. But long time exposures show how impressive such objects can look. What we don’t see is, if the whirl still whirls. We also see some double stars within our own galaxy which seem to be coupled together by their own gravity. This are obviously objects of similar properties otherwise one would become the center and the other it’s satellite. The reason why for instance Jupiter has so many moons (which can easily be observed in a binocular) is his huge gravity which somehow caught so many of them when the Solar System was formed. If there is a sufficient mass difference, the center-satellite relation will be established, if mass difference is to small, those object will move like two kids holding hands and whirling around. What Simon suggests is, that our Solar System is not build around the sun but it is a kind of a whirl, where the planets just whirl around without the sun as their center and control instance. What Tycho Brahe suggested was, that the Earth is in the middle and the Sun is circling around with Mercury and Venus as satellites. Which is not the same. As I already wrote, if Mars and Earth were just whirling around their distance to each other could not vary as much as it does. A couple of years ago I saw the white pole on Mars. Now Mars is far away and I can’t see any details anymore. Besides such complicated systems won’t be very stable. Also there is no reason, why it should be like Simon suggests. It’s just his game of make-believe. The anomalies he mentions have much better explanations. I also think, it is not his idea. He’s not interested in astronomy, never used a telescope. He is some low level video cutter. Somebody fed him this stuff. And last but not least, when I say Simon I mean this “Simon, Hoy, Nonhocapito and many others” team.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. maybe its the condition to keep the forum, maybe TPTB even pay some skilled bloggers to spread this kind of propaganda. Maybe MM is doing it too with his scientific papers. I don’t know. Simon mentions Sirius in his abstract. Its the brightest star and if you’re skilled and lucky you can see the Sirius B near the Sirius A, which looks very much like a planet. Mainstream says it is a dwarf star and both are whirling around each other but who knows? I never saw Sirius B yet but I consider it possible and even the movement period of 50 years can be true. But how to observe that both objects are whirling and that it is not a sun-planet constellation like our system? Only NASA can do that. The point is, even mainstream claims both objects have similar gravity force and also that both objects are stars not planets. Simon claims our Sun (a star) is whirling together with the Earth (a planet) in a way, that both are constantly almost at the same position in relation to a centre of gravity where there is nothing. We observe different things. We see moons circling planets, etc. Simon claims to contradict the mainstream at the same time he is using NASA information to ground his theory. Also MM uses NASA output for his theories by the way. Sirius B is supposedly known since 1850 or something. A German scientist Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel supposedly 1844 discovered irregularities in the movement of Sirius A but he wasn’t able to see it? This Bessel was born on July 22 and died on March 17 (0722=11, 0317=11) but it may be accidental, you know. 😉

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I have had the privilege, in the mountains near Santa Cruz, CA, to observe the backdrop above through a large telescope that is opened up to the public on occasion. I could see spiral galaxies invisible to the naked eye, including two that are colliding. It was very moving. I was also able to see Saturn and its rings through a smaller telescope at that time – there was a large group of people who do that for a hobby there. I have long wondered how astronomers are able to gauge the size and shape and scope of the Milky Way and our position in it even as we are part of it. It is all mysterious to me. I know that as the earth revolves around the sun, some will say that the sun also revolves around the earth over a much larger time frame … that would be no more than a slight wobble by comparison. But Shack’s revelations do nothing for me, seem outlandish and pointless. Unless there is a point to it all.

          Liked by 2 people

  3. As the man who:

    *hosted the infamous Ball Earth Skeptic Roundtable series in 2015, and
    *was the first to publicly denounce the laughable ‘Cavendish experiment’ as the utterly ridiculous nonsense that it is, and
    *was attacked on CluesForum (and accused of being a government agent sent specifically to harm/obscure Shack’s work) as a result of all of this…

    I feel eminently qualified to comment on the matter at hand.

    Let me say this:

    It seems to me quite possible that both Simon Shack and Miles Mathis are ‘real people’, in the sense that individual, physical humans, with their professed likenesses and legal identities, do exist as represented, and the work which bears their names is in fact written/produced by them as claimed.

    It also seems possible to me that this is not in fact the case.

    Why can I not find any audio or video recordings of Miles Mathis? Am I not searching well enough? Can somebody point me in the right direction?

    Why does Cluesforum seek to make enemies out of people like me, and ban posters on their forum for trivial reasons? Why, if they are a bastion of independent research, did their ‘Gravity’ thread fail to identify the Cavendish problem until AFTER I came along and did the heavy lifting for them?

    I am just some guy from Australia, who anybody can organise to meet (no fee necessary), many people have met, and who is happy to chat with people on the air and answer questions (something I do regularly at Fakeologist and on my own site). I am not particularly intelligent or gifted, and certainly not special.

    Somehow I have been able to crack a case which neither MM or SS have been able to crack — even though both have, apparently, attempted.

    At this point, believers in either MM and/or SS may become defensive, and perhaps even accuse me of ‘arrogance’ or whatever. Hold on a moment, I am merely some dude from Brisbane, and I just explained to you that I am not special. Compare this with the SS sycophancy at Cluesforum, or the manner in which MM portrays himself as some gift from the gods to the women of the world in paper after paper detailing his alleged sexual prowess.

    If anybody wants you to believe that they are special, it is MM and SS (and their loyal followers). And yet these two fellows also want you to believe that man can weigh the moon with heavy balls in a shed!

    Goodness gracious me. What is going on here?

    I’ll give you the hot tip: man cannot weigh the moon with heavy balls in a shed, and anybody who honestly believes otherwise is either:

    *under the spell of scientism, or
    *completely moronic

    Any objective man capable of critical thought will quickly realise that the Cavendish experiment is a ruse.

    Outer space is a hoax, my friends. And Cavendish is the key. See the ample, FREE material on the following page if you would like to consider what I have to share with you.

    Let me add that no offense is meant to either SS or MM if they are indeed ‘real people’, which they may well be. The work attributed to MM has helped me reconsider my own views in the past, and September Clues was a pivotal stepping stone in my deprogramming journey circa 2015 when I was first learning about media fakery and related topics.

    If either of you are indeed ‘real people’, and are reading this, then please accept my sincere gratitude for the good I have taken from your work in the past, and know that you need only contact me if you would like to record an interview, in which I will be more than happy to allow you to correct anything I have said or implied about you which may be untrue or unfair.



    1. the gravity will not stop existing even if the Cavendish experiment won’t work. What makes you think, there is no outer space? What is it then? What are the stars and planets? Miles Mathis makes no videos of himself. It does not prove, he is not a real person. There are some videos of Simon Shack. It does not prove, he is a real person either. Your videos are boring and polemic, dear JLB and they contain no useful information.


      1. @B. MULLER

        The Cavendish experiment is not supposed to be about ‘proving gravity’. It is supposed to be about determining ‘Big G’ and therefore the mass of the earth — and then, with some simple mathematical calculations based on Kepler’s ‘laws of planetary motion’, the mass of the other lights we see in the sky.

        You ask me, ‘what are the stars and planets’? The only empirical evidence available to us is the light we see. Even through powerful telescopes, they remain merely lights, and look NOTHING like the colourful wonderlands we are shown on the telescreen and in our textbooks.

        The question is simple: do you believe that ANYBODY at ANY TIME could EVER determine the mass of the earth via the use of heavy balls hanging from a torsion balance?

        Anybody who refuses to answer this question with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will be revealing their own doubts about the official story by conspicuous omission. Scientism is for the simple-minded masses, and I for one have ascended above it. The question is, how many people out there are psychologically brave enough to do the same?


    2. Mathis already talked about the Cavendish experiment . Even if the Cavendish experiment is useless, it doesn’t mean that gravity doesn’t exist. The mainstream explanations regarding gravity are probably wrong on many levels (beyond the Cavendish experiment). I would bet that gravity is due to a mechanical interaction.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. it is the other way round, mechanic interaction is possible due to gravity. The rotation of the Earth gives as the solar pole and stability because it works like a gyroscope for the planet. It is the cause for the magnetic pole. The Earth rotates in the electrical field of the solar energy and works like a giant electromagnet. I don’t believe the stories of pole reversals. We don’t know how it was before humans started writing about what they see. The most interpretations of what happened before that based on what we can find today are too far fetched. Maybe there is a charge filed as MM states or ether or whatever. It doesn’t matter if we find an exact theory to describe something like that or not. It doesn’t even matter if we know the exact mass of Mars. What kind of directives can you derive from such information? We have only what is now happening on the Earth. Since humans exists, this didn’t significantly change. How it was before that or how it is somewhere in space we will never really know for sure. That’s our real law of nature and the limit of our perception.


      2. @ CALGACUS

        You are correct that Mathis published a paper on the Cavendish experiment. His own analysis predates my own, and this is something I have given him full credit for since the very beginning of my own inquiry into the matter.

        ‘Gravity’ is a theory to explain the phenomenon of denser/heavier objects tending to fall to earth. The phenomenon (falling) is obviously real, and the theory (‘gravity’) is obviously real (in the sense that it exists; there is a theory of gravity).

        If you do not understand the distinction between the PHENOMENON and the THEORY, then I am not sure this conversation can proceed much further. This is entry-level stuff.

        In any event, the Cavendish experiment is not about ‘proving gravity’. It takes ‘gravity’ as a given, and then uses the alleged attraction between heavy balls on a torsion balance as a measurable force which can then be used to infer ‘Big G’ and hence the mass of the entire earth and then (via Kepler’s ‘laws’) the mass of the moon, the sun, and so on and so forth.

        The question is simple: do you believe that ANYBODY at ANY TIME could EVER determine the mass of the earth via the use of heavy balls hanging from a torsion balance?


    3. Hold your horses, John. If you really want to get in touch with Miles, he has his email published at his site, so feel free to send him an email. In my experience, he always responds to an interesting scientific question / dilemma. I repeat, always.

      There is something you need to know before getting in touch with Miles about the physics in question – you better understand the issue in question fairly good, or you’ll be very disappointed by the received reply or lack of it.

      There is a big difference in your approach to the issue of Cavendish experiment in comparison to Miles’ approach. I have taken enough time to go through the material posted at your site about Cavendish, and noticed that you did not use the physics / math in your attempt to correct / debunk the mainstream conclusion stemming from the results of Cavendish experiment. The issue at question is “big G” -> why did you fail to address the math underlying the theory being tested with the experiment? Don’t you think real physics should be represented by real mechanics and translated into the theory accordingly? If you actually do, than you have failed to deliver the essence of your rebuttal, although it is quite apparent that you consider yourself as some ordinary guy, who has managed to solve the riddle of gravity (big G) itself.

      Well, that’s just your illusion, I’m afraid. In my perspective, anybody attempting to get to the bottom of real physics should acknowledge the charge, understand its physical laws and mechanics involved and only then proceed to higher levels of reality. Charge emitting capability of any mass is fundamental knowledge and Mathis achievement is pinpointing this within his theory of the de-unified field. In your writing and videos from your link, there is no trace of your acknowledgement of charge as fundamental E/M field. It is the most crucial difference between you and Mathis.

      So, to deconstruct Cavendish, it’s not nearly enough to make fun out of his experiment setting. He chose a primitive setting for laying it out, but that doesn’t say anything about the concept or the results. The essence is in the mechanics, as always with the physics in question. Here’s a picture taken from Miles’ paper on Cavendish, a modern reproduction of the original apparatus:

      With such apparatus Cavendish measured the deflection of one small ball, and found it to be .16 in. The biggest issue is why can deflection be observed and measured. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you have never addressed this issue. In your attempt to debunk Cavendish, you have never approached the issue of mechanics. I assume that is due to the fact that you don’t acknowledge charge as real physical entity. And that consequently means you come to understanding of what Cavendish managed to show for real.

      Here comes the confusing part: such attraction as the above apparatus can manifest, is not about the attraction at all. Quoting from Mathis paper on Cavendish:

      “In Cavendish we do not have an attraction that we can explain as only apparent. It is not geometric only. No curvature can explain it, since it exhibits not only motion but real force. The force on the torsion wire is not only apparent. It is a real force. This causes any mechanically inclined person to have fits. It should cause curved space people to have fits, but they aren’t terribly honest with themselves. Only those who have some connection to expansion theories really take this question as seriously as it should be taken. Not only because it is a real thorn to expansion theories, and always has been; but because it is a real thorn to anyone who thinks physics is mechanics and only mechanics. Anyone who demands a real physical explanation of physics must get stuck here, since physics itself is stuck here, and has been since Newton.”

      Bottom line: if you are really genuine in your attempt to understand where the Cavendish experiment failed, and you want to debate it with Miles, I strongly recommend you to either get a grasp on his de-unification theory before approaching him about it or you should forget about it completely. In my experience, with your case against Cavendish as-is, you’ll be really lucky to get any reply from him.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. @VEXMAN

        Thank you for your suggestion to contact Miles via email. I plan to do exactly that.

        Regarding the rest of your verbose rejection of my analysis of the Cavendish experiment, let me ask you this very simple question:

        Do you believe that ANYBODY at ANY TIME could EVER determine the mass of the earth via the use of heavy balls hanging from a torsion balance?

        A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ shall suffice.

        Fear not, for I have no intention to change your mind, regardless of your answer. This is merely a litmus test to determine whether or not we share the same basic epistemological framework required to progress in conversation on the matter at hand.


        1. A clever reply, if I was a politician I’d admire your capability of avoiding direct questions. But I’m not, so I need to tell you that conversing in circles makes me feel at least slightly annoyed.

          A few remarks before I answer your question. Verbose rejection, you say? I feel I could have written a wall of text on the subject of Cavendish in a debate with you if only I had enough motivation for it. While it wouldn’t make you change your pre-determined mind about the essence of Cavendish experiment, it would certainly change your definition of a verbose reply for good. I honestly don’t care what you personally believe about Cavendish, you see. When it comes to physics, I’m more into math and logic instead of being a jerk about the experiment’s setting.

          So, can you avoid being rude in a conversation? It would certainly help you getting along with people, you know. And what’s with all those CAPS? It reads as if your mind was shouting at me while articulating non-substantive reply about the issue in question. And I know that you already know my answer to your above question. Bottom line: although you may have the feeling that my answer to your question will determine our possible future debate, I already feel very reluctant about either replying or continuing this conversation. Talking openly about anything is something you still need to master.

          Yes, I do believe Cavendish experiment has useful value in determining the forces at play on Earth’s surface, charge included. I also believe the results of Cavendish experiment were correctly interpreted only with Mathis’ approach to the question of forces at play. So the issue of basic epistemological framework is finally laid out – clearly and directly. Can you follow, without using ad hominems ?


          1. Let’s try this again:

            Do you believe that ANYBODY at ANY TIME could EVER determine the mass of the earth via the use of heavy balls hanging from a torsion balance?

            A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ shall suffice.


  4. I photographed some galaxies from my roof terrace with all the light pollution and it still was fun.Even though not many details can be seen. The larger the telescope and darker the night the more you will see. Sirius is just a bright star and always appears as a bright dot to me. Maybe the entire double star is just another hoax. At least it sounds quite convincing: two objects of different sizes but similar gravity forces are whirling around each other. Shacks model contains nothing like this. There is the Sun and the Earth rotating together around some mysterious center of gravity. What makes them rotating that way? If orbits of two bodies intersect (Mars and Sun in Tychos), why did they never collide. Does that make sense? The entire summary of his Tychos is full of statements like “Copernican model cannot explain this…” and “Tychos is the ONLY existing model explaining everything” without any concrete example and explanation why Copernican model does not work and Tychos does. For this you have to pay him.
    And if you look at the topic in the cluesforum it goes like: “Simon says something, Hoi confirms, Nonho asks something in form of pseudo-critic, Simon says you’re right dear Nonho, then repeats what he said before with different words, Hoi confirms again, Nonho thanks him for “explanation”, etc. It reads like a story board and not as a forum.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I meant Simon writes the orbits of the Sun and Mars intersect. On his picture they don’t. And where is Jupiter and Saturn in Tychos? It makes no sense at all.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. one more funny thing: Simon uses a Planetarium simulation software for his research. Does it mean, this software does not simulate the Copernican model? So it is not Simon who discovered Tycho? 🙂 He writes “The NEAVE PLANETARIUM (which more realistically shows what we ACTUALLY can see from Earth)”. Does he understand a software never shows anything which we can see, it only shows a model simulation?

        Liked by 2 people

      2. I have read those few chapters of Shack’s model that he offered for free. I too noticed that Jupiter and Saturn, two largest planets of our Solar system, are missing from the picture. Their orbits and masses don’t account for anything within a balanced planetary model, I guess.

        On top of it, his picture of the Solar system suggests that orbits of Sun and Mars intersect, which would imply possible collision of these two bodies. The consequence of such collision would most probably be Mars disappearing from the system (i.e. pulverized) as the Sun has many times larger mass. The same picture shows orbits of Earth and Mars intersecting, again implying possible collision of these two planets. How could anybody explain an obvious lack of such collision(s), as we are still able to observe all planets of our Solar system? Just coincidence?

        Apparently, his model depends on the laws of gravity being completely different from what we have been taught about. In theory, larger mass means larger gravity / attraction force. Considering it, it is unnatural to see a larger mass body evolve around the smaller one. What is the initial mechanism of settling a much larger mass into an orbit of a smaller one? It is as much unnatural as to expect that the enormous mass of the Sun does not affect the orbit of a smaller planet as it passes by – i.e. Mars, Earth or both planet’s moons, as Tychos model pictures them.

        I’m really not interested about paying any sum of money to find out the possible answers to this issue. I have seen big minds trying to understand the principle of gravity, failing to do anything more than describing its effects. This model is faulty in the way it incorporates very basic physics principles and is thus useless, but that is just my opinion. What seems worse to understand is the fact, that all this Tychos nonsense seems/reads/feels very much the same as the FE nonsense. That said, any second spent discussing it means time wasted.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. As far as I know, the present-day free Tychosium 2D just contains the inner planets. But his full model contains also the asteroid belt, Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus and Neptune. If I am not mistaken even Pluto is included.

            I have a lot of critical questions and possible objections in my head, but will wait with that after reading the book.

            25 euros for a good book and model doesn’t seem expensive either. You get just 1 month of “premium secret content” at for that (12x as expensive), and I am sure I get more answers from Simon Shack than from Jon “War is a Hoax” Le Bon…


  5. there is a kind of a movement against the old fashioned science, where government controlled school programs replace geometry with the set theory, where established orthography is suddenly changed forcing students to make silly errors (in Germany in 1996, 2006 and 2011), where Noble prizes go to theoretical scientists who never produced anything of practical value. Also things like Flat Earth belong to it. At the same time really critical videos are banned from Youtube, commenting on mainstream papers is allowed only with registration or via Facebook login and even then heavily censored. New role models for kids are so called youtubers, meaning people making silly videos without any content and pretending to make loads of money with it. The list is long. Looks, like we’re moving into Idiocracy (the movie)


  6. Mark, I struggle to understand your position and especially your exposure to one of the biggest weapons we have against the Elites; logic.

    In the discussion about “Iconoclast” Velikovsky, you criticized me and others, and I paraphrase “discarding a model without reading the actual book”. And there you have a solid point, though I do not discard his model a priori, I merely pointed out some red flags about that guy, especially an 11 week straight bestseller position for the NYT.

    Now however, you fail to apply that same argument to Simon Shacks book and even went on a strange tangent with a book about nuked aliens and all. Like the TYCHOS is comparable to such psi-fi??

    Logic only works if you apply it consistently, so if you ask others “to first read and then judge”, implicitly you demand the same thing of yourself.

    The MM claim doesn’t impress. In 2015 it was already out in the open that Simon was working on his model, and he has always battled against FE. So MM’s “prediction” in 2016 is bogus.

    On Cluesforum you have a point I think, not so much as a “limited hangout”, but I do think Hoi Polloi is a gatekeeper (apart from an unpleasant guy and horrible writer). He has banned many good people, among others Vexman and Josh. And the forum is dead compared to Fakeologist and PoM.

    But also there consistent logic kicks in. If you speak about “gaining an audience and then misdirecting, ‘that is his job'”, what makes that of Fakeologist and PoM, with many more active members than Cluesforum 2018 and PoM having roughly 4 times (!) as many subscribed members as Fakeologist.

    Aren’t you shattering your own windows (as the Dutch saying goes) with such an argument?


    1. Crap this is bugging me! I don’t want to read the damned book but now feel like I have to. Can we just flesh it out here in the comments, and spare me the misery? It is not something I would otherwise read anyway, as cosmology and astronomy are not among my areas of interest. I put up this post to allow those who are interested a forum to knock it around.

      Also, like Flat Earth, one of their ploys is to get opponents to immerse themselves in pointless detail, eventually winning arguments because they simply overwhelm their opponents.


      1. HA! A reprieve! The book is not available yet in print, and I cannot read long works on computer screens – my eyes don’t work well on back-lighting. (I am hoping the matter will be forgotten.) The table of contents looks dreary beyond the pale …


        1. Read the book Mr Tokarski (2022 version). I just started 6 chapters in, it’s definitely worth reading imo. I was going to ask your opinion on the subject and still probably will. It is a very good piece of work whether it be from a scientific or distraction (or possibly both) point of view is debatable perhaps but it is most certainly good work.


          1. The 2022 TYCHOS model is great and very convincing. There is one obvious point of contention though. It puts the nearest stars well within range of observation by modern amateur astronomers and unless the web is being scrubbed I can’t find any evidence of them figuring out that the stars are much closer than received wisdom. According to TYCHOS Alpha Centauri binary star system is 6.84 AU away, Jupiter is in that sort of ballpark.


            1. Is there an updated 2022 version of the book?

              It would be a shame if that new star distance is set in the new version. It was one of my criticisms against simon’s conclusions that suddenly placing stars in our own solar system doesn’t make any sense.

              His conclusion was and should be is that “the distance to stars are unreliable as the measurements of parallax are different throughout the year”. So his conclusion was that ALL stellar distances cannot be trusted (because they use parallax as measurement).

              Now going back to his crappy conclusions of back in 2018 would be a loss.

              Simon is just not a scientist, and he lacks professionals who can help him get to better conclusions.


  7. TYCHOS = yet another distraction from the much more important issues of concerning fake events, people and other lies that have an actual direct effect on the populace.

    The juxtaposition of solar system objects might be interesting but it leads nowhere which is right where the spooks want us to be — discussing and arguing about topics that are relatively harmless to their projects. This sort of thing seems to be Simon’s specialty.

    I don’t think it is a coincidence that Simon released this project at about the same time that YouTube did its purge of legitimate researchers, leaving only the spook-directed fakes.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Thanks – I was really feeling shitty about avoiding the book. I am not off the hook yet, as I put up this post, and ran across these words today doing some transcribing from Velikovsky – he is speaking of physical evidence that abounds in support of his theories:

      Stones and bones are the only witnesses. Mute as they are, they will testify clearly and unequivocally. Yet dull ears and damned eyes will deny this evidence, and the dimmer the vision the louder and more insistent will be the voices of protestation. This book was not written for those who swear by the verba magistri – the holiness of their school wisdom; and they may debate it without reading it, as well.

      Sort of hit me where I live.


      1. I have been pleased to have had considerable communication, both written and verbal, with Simon. Rather than simply toss out any personal hunch about the man I want to express some fundamentals, the first of which is that no one I know, myself included, is always accurate on every expressed topic. After doing my own fact checking I have concluded the SC website to be the most accurate analysis of the 9/11 media hoax. Simon has concluded that rockets do not work in a vacuum and that an 18th century observer’s model of our solar system is more accurate than that of today’s astrophysicists. Those thoughts are curious but hardly relate to 9/11 and the SC site. Is SS a LH? Possibly, of course. So could anyone reading this, MM, and me too, all of which fall into an ad hominem basket and the sociology of knowledge. If SS is LH it may be due to the fact that the 9/11 perps must be adjudged innocent of mass murder, should the matter arise. How that possibility relates to the fine work done by Simon and his conclusions as expressed on escapes me.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I had a brief exchange with Simon Shack and another with Miles Mathis. In both cases, I pointed out an error each had made. That they erred is incontestable. Neither would admit the error.

          Initially Simon was very accommodating, even marking up and reposting a graphic just for me, to back his original claim. I replied with graphic proof of his error, and never heard from him again.

          With Miles, I pointed out an obvious mistake in his analysis of a a pair of images. He simply replied with “I disagree.” Also, I’ve noticed Miles’ guest writers all seem to have closely copied Mile’s writing style.

          IMO, neither of these guys are what they purport themselves to be and should not be trusted.


  8. If, and since, Simon and this Tychos thing don’t address Mathisian astrophysics as well then it can already be discarded as bullshit. The standard model can’t even explain elliptical orbits (or any orbits) so unless Tychos at least one-ups them on the basics, I don’t see how it could be correct or useful.

    I agree with Muller entirely about software. Even my high-end physics simulator (inside Maya, the premier CGI/3D application in the world) is crap in / crap out. You have to tell it how to behave and give it the models, data, and animate things properly if you want to get anywhere with any accuracy. Which is why I only really use it for illustrating concepts – never as proof of them. Even Maya’s physics aren’t programmed for the quantum level that Mathis has presented us, at the photon charge scale.

    So when I see these newbs and rookies using craptastic software to “prove their point”, it’s an immediate flag. Not about conspiracy necessarily, but accuracy definitely.

    I couldn’t dream of slogging through his book, any more than another one of Hawking’s.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. actually that is the main point: Simon says the NEAVE PLANETARIUM software does not simulate the Copernican model properly, therefore the Copernican model must be wrong. Can this be the same Simon from the early Cluesforum?

    Liked by 1 person

  10. The biggest red flag regarding SS is his relative close connection to the Bin Laden family. Of course that can be just an innocent coincidence. Nonetheless, the coincidence can blackwash the ideas presented at CF, especially the ones related to 9/11.

    His Tychos model is supposed to be just a geometrical model. I believe he said that he doesn’t want to cover the mechanics behind the model (gravity and the rest). A model that is purely geometrical and kinetical is not necessarily useless, especially if it makes good predictions. I will read the thread on CF from time to time to see the updates. But I have to say that this topic is not a top priority for me.


    1. the you must believe, there is this powerful Bin Laden family with so many rich people in it that even Donald Trump looks poor in comparison. I don’t buy the story “discovered” by that Phil Jayhan entity. I don’t believe in super rich billionaires or whatever. Some 30 years ago it was “millionaires” by the way. They adjusted the amount of money necessary to become super rich to keep the envy up. That is why they constantly show us how those super rich people live, but it is scripted. Nothing of it is for real. The more you owe, the more work it causes. There is a natural limit for everybody, where it stops being fun. Of course it is also no fun to owe nothing at all. What predictions can Tychos make, the Copernican model can’t?


      1. I don’t believe in the Forbes booshit lists and I am not sure how real are the biographies of famous people. But these famous people (including Bin Laden family members) most likely belong to the Families that control this earth. The families are probably very rich, even if the Forbes lists are booshit. In fact they are probably more rich than these lists imply. They have real wealth like land and resources(gold, silver, knowledge etc) . They also control the monetary system (which is the real magic). Of course, we probably don’t see the real patriarchs and matriarchs in these Forbes lists, but don’t tell me that Bezos, Gates or Buffet are just random actors selected after a few auditions.
        A lot of narratives presented are fake, but these narratives are powerful social engineering tools. These narratives affect and will affect our personal liberty. This is not just about keeping the “envy up”.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. “The more you owe, the more work it causes. There is a natural limit for everybody, where it stops being fun. Of course it is also no fun to owe nothing at all.”

        Just to clarify, do you mean “owe” or “own” in these two sentences?


    2. “The biggest red flag regarding SS is his relative close connection to the Bin Laden family.”

      Does the ‘bin Laden’ family actually exist? If so, where or how can I verify this information for myself?

      I remember hearing mainstream stories about how ‘teh bin Ladens were flown out of the US after teh terrorist attacks!’

      Was that one a Micky Moore special? Am I to believe Big Mick?


      1. It doesn’t matter if this family is a ghost/spook. The connection was acknowledged by SS, so ask him how real are these spooks (or how much he believes in them). I am ready to accept that 99-100% of these narratives presented on TV are fake. The TV may be fake but the spooks exist.
        SS also acknowledged that his father was some UN agent that dealt with Italian mafia. If the Italian mafia narratives are as fake as the US mafia narratives, it is another big flag . It means that the narrative about combating the evil Italian mafia is another distraction. If the Italian Mafia is just another funny narrative made to distract the population, it means that his father is part of the made for TV specials.


  11. Dear all,
    In my introductory post of my Tychos model at Cluesforum, I offered all Cluesforum members the option to contact me via e-mail (simonshack[at] for a PDF copy of my book free of charge. I would now like to extend this offer to all Fakeologist and PoM members. I kindly suggest that anyone who wishes to comment on the Tychos model first read my book – in its entirety. And yes, I conducted the Tychos research and wrote the book in perfect solitude – with no outside help whatsoever. If you believe otherwise, I guess there is nothing I can do about it.

    To those who may not be much versed in astronomy and/or think that this stuff is ‘way above your head’, fear not : my Tychos book is quite unlike your classic astronomy treatise (which, more often than not, are quite dreary affairs – no doubt!). I hope and trust that you will find it a most digestible and interesting read – whether you ultimately agree with its logical conclusions or not. In any event, you should at least be able to appreciate why I dare call it “the true model of our solar system” – and why the currently-accepted Copernican / Keplerian model has to be discarded as a plausible geometric configuration of our nearby cosmos. After all, I think I’ve done a decent job in later years, demonstrating that the official fantasy-narratives of 9/11 and space travel had to be discarded – lock stock and barrel.

    Simon Shack

    Liked by 2 people

    1. And yet, no mention of Mathis, charge, or over 300 papers correcting and refining the standard model to its very core. So you wrote your paper in perfect solitude, ignoring the most prominent new physics to emerge in almost a century.

      Then you expect us to pay to read your works – when Mathis has already released all of his to us for free.

      Can your “Tychos” model explain the axial tilt of any of the planets? Can it explain the elliptical orbits of everything and anything orbiting, ever? Can it explain the distances of the planets, or the brightness of them and their moons? Can it explain why Uranus’s atmosphere is on fire and why there are ice caps on Mercury? What about comets and their tails?

      Can you explain why the sky is blue?


      1. ‘Ice caps on Mercury’?

        Is this a ruse, or have you been drinking the NASA kool-aid?

        PoM is one of the precious few places on the internet today where the audience is generally aware of media fakery. Lord help us if this awareness extends only to the ‘school shootings’ and similar Baby Hoaxes, but does not reach the obvious, logical conclusion of challenging the cartoonish depictions of the ‘planets’ given to us by the authorities.

        The line between ‘science’ and ‘fiction’ is only as thick as a man’s mind.


        1. JLB, your comments are going to moderation again, an interesting phenomenon I do not understand. After the last time we discussed this, I cleaned out the “banned” list in total, and you had no problem. (No one is permanently banned here.) Since then I have added two names, neither of them yours, and you are again ending up in the hopper. The letters “JLB” are not in any form on the banned list. I am stumped.


          1. It is rather strange. I have tried alternating between ‘JLB’ and ‘John le Bon’, apparently to no avail. I apologise to you for the inconvenience of having to check the spam folder to approve each of my comments. I am as stumped about the cause of this as you are.


        2. We have data that shows ice on Mercury’s polar surfaces. Yes, the data may be fabricated. But we also have the same data on the Earth’s ice caps – that is to say, if you’ve never been there, you can’t actually KNOW that Antarctica or the Artcic ice caps actually exist. This gets into the philosophy and that’s fine but that’s not what we’re talking about here – we’re talking about physics. Mercury and Earth are subject to the same physics, you know – as far as we understand it. And some of us understand it a lot better than others, either more accurately or more precisely.

          From Miles’ paper on Mercury’s Ice Caps:
          “Since these photons are moving the reverse direction of emitted photons (in rather than out), they cause cooling rather than warming. In other words, if emitted charge photons are defined as heat, then photons coming in must tamp down the emission. Tamping down heating is the same as cooling. It is this intake of charge that acts to prevent heat at lower latitudes on Mercury from moving up to the poles. The incoming photons block this movement by straight bombardment. True, photons cannot be stopped or even slowed, but they can be diverted. Photon collisions are real, they cause diversion, which causes a longer path (or an escaping path for a percentage of photons). This is what is happening at the poles of Mercury.”

          This is the same thing happening on Earth, Mars, Venus, and every other planet. And the sun. It’s cooler at its poles, you know, and its emission peaks at the 30º N and S lines – just like Earth’s.

          Note also that SimonShack hasn’t bothered to address my rebuttal. I’d be surprised if he answered one single question, much less with a correct answer.


          1. @JARED MAGNESON

            “We have data that shows ice on Mercury’s polar surfaces. Yes, the data may be fabricated. But we also have the same data on the Earth’s ice caps – that is to say, if you’ve never been there, you can’t actually KNOW that Antarctica or the Artcic ice caps actually exist.”

            What argument are you trying to make here? That there is as much evidence for ice caps on earth as there is for ice caps on Mercury? That to doubt ice caps on Mercury necessitates doubt about ice caps on earth?

            If either of those are your position, then the absurdity is plain for all to see.

            We know for a fact that earth exists, and is a solid physical object. What is in doubt is the claim that the light in the sky we call ‘Mercury’ is a solid, physical object. Apart from the comical images from NASA et al, and a phenomenal amount of science fiction programming, we have ZERO evidence that Mercury is a solid, physical object.

            This may be triggering to those who have bought into the ‘Outer Space’ fantasy, and it is not my goal to upset people. Those with eyes to see, those who have already begun the process of shrinking the ego and accepting how easily we have all been fooled by authority, will recognise the inherent truth in what I am saying.

            We have ZERO evidence that Mercury is a solid, physical object. This is significant.


          2. What are you talking about? Zero evidence? Cartoonish? We have only positive evidence that Mercury is a solid, concrete physical object – because we can see it. We can also track its motions, and using that data we can extrapolate its orbit, its mass, and many other things about it. We have photos of it as well – but those aren’t real enough so I guess it’s off to Operation Fantasy Land where nothing is real.

            I’m the first to admit that NASA and their cohorts use a lot of CGI, and often very poorly. But not everything is CGI, and most of the photos I’ve seen of Mercury (and most of the other planets) also are not CGI. I can spot the difference better than most because it’s my field of work and play. I use the most powerful software available and even NASA doesn’t have anything better – how can I say that? Because the market would want it, and make it a saleable product. And those guys use Autodesk software just like me. Houdini is the only software outside Maya that they might not use much, but it’s readily available if they were to wish to use it. Pixar, ILM, Sony Dreamworks – all use the same software I do. And much of that IS cartoonish, obviously, but not my work and not most of the Realism movement within CGI. It’s the opposite of cartoonish. These photos of Mercury are also the opposite of cartoonish, many nearly as detailed as the moon itself. Do you believe the moon is a cartoon, hanging in the sky, and not a real physical body?

            But even with the best software and hardware, it’s still crap-in, crap-out. To replicate the photos we see of the planets (and I’m not talking about the false-color “data photos” such as the recent ones of Jupiter) would require a master artist the likes of which this world hasn’t seen before. So NASA has that guy? A guy who’s better than every other CG artist on the planet, but does only planets?

            Only real, physical objects can cause real, physical motions in space and even photons are real, physical objects. Mercury is not just a magic light some deity put into space to shine our way. Your argument is a non-starter. You’re basically saying Tychos is plausible because nothing is believable, in which case you can’t believe this Tychos nonsense either. You’re wasting all our time here.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. @JARED MAGNESON

            We have zero evidence that Mercury is a solid, physical object. None. Nada. Zilch.

            Just because we can see lights in the sky does not mean that they are solid, physical objects.

            I have looked at the lights in the sky through the most powerful telescopes available to consumers. The ‘planets’ look very pretty, to be sure, but they look nothing like the CGI images we are given on our telescreens and in textbooks.

            If you disagree, then I insist that you post a link to an image of Mercury which you believe to real — one which is not the work of CGI.

            I will be more than happy to inspect it for myself.


          4. Jared, don’t be so sure that NASA, other big government agencies and other secret entities use the same CGI technology you use. All other weapons are probably fake or greatly exaggerated (atomic bombs, nuclear submarines, rockets etc). That means that their power is mostly derived from propaganda. CGI technology is probably an important component of the propaganda narratives. They probably don’t need a software that is way more advanced. Their secret is probably their supercomputers from around the world that give them the processing power. Of course, I would not be amazed if they have more complex software. The talk about “the market would want it” is not good reasoning. You can make money on the market, but you can make more money from the tax dollars if you use the CGI on major scams (more money, easier money and guaranteed money) . Also I assume that many people here will agree that the scams go beyond the money. It is most likely about social engineering and control .

            Regarding the talk about Mercury I will say that I didn’t study the images and I don’t know. In the end the question of how much to trust the official information, images, studies or documents is an important one (scientific info or non-scientific info). This is probably another big rabbit hole. For this reason I mostly stay away from science proper. I still do my own mathematical research (nothing controversial). Unfortunately, even mathematics probably has corruption in some major areas.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. There are piles of Mercury photos from the Mariner probe, which look and seem pretty legit to me:

            There are piles of Mercury photos from Messenger as well:

            But I will outright agree with you that most of the Messenger stuff is HIGHLY suspect. Most of is are heightmaps and such, so digital terrain. CGI renderings, generally with the photos used as “bump maps” or displacement maps. That’s also what we see almost entirely from the recent Juno probe. I could easily recreate any of those with just random planet-like height maps. I daresay I could do better, too.

            I agree that much of this shit is faked – but I disagree that all of it is. Mercury is visible in the sky, I’ve seen it with my eyes and binoculars and a friend’s telescope, just like the other planets. To me that’s real. I happen to think the old Mariner photos are real, whereas Messenger may have just been a money pit. I guess that’s where I draw a line – on things like the planets and the sun existing.


          6. Calgacus, I agree that NASA has access to the best software around. They have Maya and Houdini, and they even probably have techs and artists better than me to run it. They have vast compute-power at their disposal, far more than I do for sure. So they can surely pull off some amazing shit.

            But that said, there are limits to what CGI is capable of, and I know those limits intimately. For example you can’t just tell Maya to “make me a dragon!” You can’t just toss spheres around and have them conform to real physics. It takes both artistry and great study – even in my simple Mathis videos I have to learn all kinds of silly stuff just to “get it right”. It’s tedious. It’s painstaking, often. And some things simply aren’t possible.

            I’m sure they can fake whatever they want, but I’m also sure I can spot fakery better than they can make it. They lack artistry in their work – the difference between good imagery and great imagery.


  12. From the onset I think Simon’s approach is the most sane and scientific one; first a geometrical model that satisfactorily explains and predicts observations and then the kinematics of it all; which force(s) is/are responsible for all those motions.

    What if egos can be put aside and a completely alternative geo-heliocentric TychoShackMathis model can integrate everything and really form an alternative in both geometry and kinematics for what we observe in the skies? Maybe some Velikovsky salt with it to integrate Venus and ancient texts (that JLB doesn’t believe existed) and everybody is content?


    1. What exactly is sane and scientific about discarding the Scientific Method? What geometry is Simon using that hasn’t been used before? What observations and data is he explaining? What kinematics? Which forces are responsible in the Tychos “model”?

      I’m not even certain he knows what a force is, at this point.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Read the book and you know it.

        Simon does not discard the Scientific Method, on the contrary.

        I am at Chapter 18 now and his planetary motions are harmonic and well done. I never knew the mainstream model was so faulty.

        I have some questions and comments but will send them to him first.


        1. Can you share what is “harmonic” about elliptical planetary orbits? How does his model deal with Eros and the other dwarf planets, for example? Does he ever bother to explain the ellipse itself? What about tilt, inclination, or Venus’s reversed spin?


          1. Simon says… no elliptical orbits, only circular ones. The harmony is in the ratios between the orbits of the different planets (Jupiter and beyond), Mars as Sun’s companion and the moons Moon, Venus, Mercury (both of the Sun) and Phobos and Deimos (Mars).

            The Earth’s tilt is addressed as a tilt of the ecliptic, which inclination do you refer to? He sees Venus as tidally locked with her host; the Sun, so no real spin, but an apparent one.

            But Simon himself can explain it better I think.


          2. So he’s unable to track and follow the planets, doesn’t know what tilt or inclination are, and believes the orbits are circular instead of elliptical. He doesn’t know what the word, “harmony” means. He isn’t aware of what the sun’s ecliptic plane is.

            I’m waiting to see if this Simon guy gets ONE thing right. So far it’s a pretty dramatic failure, I mean usually they sprinkle SOME truth or reality into the bullshit.

            Hmm, I guess he got some of the planets’ names correct?

            Liked by 1 person

          3. The simplest test of elliptical orbits is in our night sky. The moon itself exhibits apogee and perigee, and you can see it with your own eyes or a decent camera or with binoculars.


            “Both of the above photos were taken with the identical telescope system (camera, focal length, magnification). Yet the Moon is some 10% larger on the November 9th photo. No, the Moon doesn’t change its size in its orbit around the Earth. On November 9th, the Moon was at perigee, and on November 23rd it was at apogee. Perigee (closest approach to Earth) and apogee (furthest approach from Earth) refer to opposite points on an elliptical orbit.

            At perigee, the Moon is closer to the Earth by 34,360 kilometers, hence it appears larger in the sky. If the Moon’s orbit was perfectly circular, there would be no change in its apparent size.”


            So Simon does away with elliptical orbits despite our own moon showing us them directly?


  13. Simon Shack send me the book via Email and I looked into it. I was looking for some simple example of why the Copernican model is so wrong and all I found was the claim the planets and stars cannot differ that much in size and some crude numbers Simon claims to have generated with his Neave Planetarium simulation. So nothing of his research is based on observation. Did he ever saw the moons of Jupiter and their huge distances? The book has about 150 pages which is not that much for 5 years of work and the most of its content are empty claims that it answers open issues of the Copernican model but it misses to name any of them. Then there are many weird graphics often used many times. Its wasting of time to read it. This may be its only purpose. The topic on the cluesforum reads like a long advert. Also Simon obviously send his book for free to all possibly interested readers so the money was not an issue as he claims. How generous of him. And I still cannot register to the cluesforum, so why bother?

    Liked by 2 people

  14. I have done the best I could. A 12 page review of his first 20 chapters (74 pages) and virtually none of my founded critical questions were answered to satisfaction.

    If my informed amateur questions didn’t hit him, then he will be butchered by much more knowledgeable people than me. His loss, sorry to say, I did the best I could.

    I have to reconsider my position here and Mark may be onto something…


    1. Can you share some more, Gaia? I remember you saying that you want to ask Simon directly and you have obviously done so. What was so unconvincing? What made you change your mind about this whole issue?


      1. Vexman, based on my last comment here, which could have sounded a bit harsh and too quick on my end, because I shared my disappointment I felt yesterday night.
        I received another email from Simon, and it is only fair to address that first and continue the review. Faye and me just had a live chat about the TYCHOS so far and this thread, will be published tomorrow at Fakeologist.


          1. Jared, the entire Tycho idea makes no sense and it is wasting of time to analyze or debunk it. It’s as nonsensical as the Flat Earth crap. All numbers there are based on this crude Planetarium Software Simon claims to use. None of it is based on observation. The phenomenons Tycho supposedly explains are also crap invented by the same source: NASA.

            Liked by 1 person

  15. From CluesForum :

    THE “CHATBOX” intro.
    postby simonshack on November 17th, 2010, 5:40 pm
    And WARM THANKS to the 8 donors who raised the funds to help us
    start this more secure though more expensive (but ad-free) forum!



    1. I call bullshit. Hosting an online forum costs next to nothing, security is also negligible in cost. A real WordPress site (none of that shit) is very cheap and easy to purchase, set up, and secure. I’ve done dozens myself, as designer, and several of my own for art and soap making.

      You don’t need “8 donors” to host an online forum. You just need one guy with a mouse and about $100, per year, for the hosting plan. That’s a day’s work for most people. One day’s.

      Liked by 1 person

  16. cluesforum became a joke. It’s a dead front and not a forum anymore. A few years ago it was flourishing with fresh discoveries, good analysis of current events, new information every day and now it’s all about that tycho crap. I haven’t read there anything of value for more than a year or so. So sad. They finally joined Alex Jones.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Please allow me to elaborate on an earlier comment I made here.

    Re: Simon Shack
    He posted a pair of images that looked almost identical and coyly asked forum members, “What’s wrong with this picture?” It was pointed out that one pic had a small tree missing from the other pic. And a lamppost had appeared to move to a new location. The implication being that it was a CGI glitch.

    The 2 frames came from Ben Reisman’s 9/11 video. They were over a minute apart. Ben was running and not pointing the camera. The video is very jumbled with the camera going all over the place. So I wonder how Simon spotted these 2 frames. It took me a while to find them and I knew exactly what I was looking for. This leads me to believe Simon has access to some very sophisticated pattern recognition software. I don’t know if anything like that is available off-the-shelf.

    I emailed Simon, gave him the location of the 2 frames and showed him it clearly wasn’t a CGI glitch. Stickler for accuracy he purports to be, I thought he would want withdraw that false piece of evidence. He replied by privately posting a new version of the frames with some added arrows and markings – just for me, a nobody. He explained that the frames would be impossible in real life, because the view they depicted was almost identical (save for the tree and lamppost) even though Ben had moved 100 feet or more.

    Using Google Street View, I managed to closely duplicate the 2 frames, proving conclusively that the frames he posted were not a CGI glitch. I sent them to him and never heard back. So much for his ‘accuracy’ and ‘honesty’.

    This happened about the same time as Ab Irato (Fakeologist) got started. Somehow, I ended up on the phone with him and told him my Simon story. He invited me to come on his upcoming show to discuss it. In the days before the show, I had a funny feeling Ab might invite Simon on to debate me. When I called in to the show, there was another caller, Jann Erik I think was his name. Well, didn’t he sound EXACTLY like Simon! The gist of the conversation was that Ab and ‘Jann’ dismissed my evidence by claiming Google Street View was ‘fake’. They claimed that the image stitching errors were proof that GSV was ‘fake’. Stitching errors normally occur when you sew together 360 degree panoramas from individual images.

    Was ‘Jann’ really Simon? It seems too much of a coincidence that I had that ‘feeling’ Simon might be on the show and then this Norwegian who sounds exactly like Simon suddenly appears.

    I’ve given Ab Irato the opportunity to recant his ridiculous ‘GSV is fake’ story but he never responded.

    Re: Miles Mathis
    Take a look at his Dresden paper. Regarding the first 2 photos, he claims it’s the same plane pasted into different backgrounds. I pointed out the difference in the distance between the end of the fuselage and the trailing edge of the left stabilizer. The plane was shot at slightly different angles and it was not a paste job. He simply replied “I disagree.”

    So much for his ‘honesty’ and/or photo analysis acumen.

    Make of it what you will, but I see Simon, Ab and Miles as proven frauds.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Starting at about minute 24, CalcifiedLies looks at some claims made on Clues Forum At 36 he goes over some claims related to the Paris attack. After 37 he has some interesting commentary about misdirecting away from a “middle ground”. You are 100% official story or you are 100% CGI/Fake/Hoax. This is a false dichotomy.

      I don’t want to make this about Mathis, but I don’t see him pushing for this type of false dichotomy. Maybe he is wrong about the 2 Dresden photos, but that doesn’t make him a fraud. Maybe you can look at the posts about Mathis to see the debates about Mathis.

      Many people from the conspiracy/alternative circles have red flags all over them (especially the bigger ones). The real truth seekers are probably all outsiders, not from elite families. For an outsider it is hard to even scratch the surface of the booshit. It requires personal abilities (intelligence/intuition/empathy etc), time and other resources. Most likely you are bound to make false judgments. I also recommend this article . The allegory of the skeleton key (from the 2005 movie) is an interesting concept.

      Liked by 1 person

  18. the planes in Mathis’ paper are from the same plane picture pasted into different context. Those analog pictures back then had to be projected on paper using some magnifying device which sometimes creates some inaccuracy but that is not the point. How can you photograph a flying airplane two times that similar? How can you ever photograph a flying airplane using ancient cameras from the war times with low sensitive film materials? You’ll have to be in an airplane yourself as close to the other airplane as possible, while the other airplane is throwing bombs? It’s all shaky there and you still can make a sharp picture? And why making pictures of it in the first place? Makes no sense. Miles point was, those pictures are fakes and that stands valid. As for Simon Shack, I remember when I was reading myself through the most of the CluesForum topics some years ago, I was often wondering why he or some other member focuses on some far fetched conclusions from some videos or pictures leaving the obvious and really important clues aside. And then other members congratulate excessively on those dubious findings. I now understand why they did it that way. The obvious fakes had to be made appear unimportant or even hidden behind many dubious findings so it will just look unconvincing to a newbie. There maybe a proper term for such a strategy which I don’t know.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @B. Muller Your response is full of misdirection. It doesn’t take an expert to see the plane was shot at 2 different angles. I doubt that you examined the photos looking for what I pointed out. The left propeller is also different. There are other more subtle differences as well but the two I pointed out should be dead obvious to any ‘expert’.

      My personal experience with Miles, Ab and Simon, along with evidence others have exposed leave no doubt in my mind that these guys are pure ‘ops’. Their job is to help keep the conspiracy world as chaotic and mud filled as possible.

      It appears you’ve seen through Simon. Maybe eventually you’ll see through Miles and Ab too.
      I know how it is. I’m too embarrassed to tell you how long I was an Alex Jones fan before I saw the light.

      @Calgacus Miles is wrong about the planes. Of that, there is no doubt. If he truly believes it was a paste job, then he has no credibility as a photo analyst. If he just made a mistake and he was a man of integrity, he’d acknowledge the mistake.
      I have seen the debate regarding Miles here and at Cluesforum and there’s nothing to convince me he’s for real. Is it just my imagination that his ‘guest writers’ writing style is so similar to Miles’? He may not be pushing for a ‘false dichotomy’ but he’s definitely pushing falsehood, and all signs point to it being intentional.

      Allan has exposed Miles in many ways. Allan, if you’re reading this, I must tell you that as a Canadian, I sometimes use ‘shite’. But Canadians, like Americans, never leave out the “the”.


  19. I have one more for you: how long does it take to open the crate, let the bombs fall out and disappear? Yet still the photographer was able to catch exactly the moment where the bombs left the airplane without knowing exactly when they will do this? You would have to have reflexes of a Jedi. Just try to catch such event with your own camera. Let somebody fall something from his outstretched hand and try to catch this on the picture. Impossible.


    1. @B. Muller If I didn’t know better, I’d think you’re joking. What makes you think the photographer was waiting for the right moment to catch the bombs being dropped? He was flying along in formation snapping pics and happened to catch the bombs dropping.

      What you claim is ‘impossible’ isn’t even relevant here.


      1. Jon, did you ever make photos with an analog film camera? There was like a dozen pictures in a film and you had to roll the film forward for every new picture. Military may have had better equipment but winders weren’t developed yet. There wasn’t any snapping pics back then. They may have made a picture every 20 seconds or so. But they also may have simply film the bombing and then use the best pics. So technically I no longer exclude the possibility for such pictures. Still this particular pictures from the MM paper look very fake to me and why did they film a bombing that way at all? What for? To convince us they were bombing? I also don’t believe the soldiers on both sides were psychopathic enough to bomb innocent civilians. I met once a German philosopher and scientist Gerard Radnitzky when he still was alive around 2005 and he was a bomber pilot in the war and told me, when he was ordered to bomb Greece he told his people to drop the bombs over the see. I wasn’t quite convinced back then but now I question everything I was ever told about the world wars so I think it must have went that way more often on both sides. If there ever was any real bombing at all. I share your doubts considering MM, Cluesforum, Fakeologist, etc. I think they all got somehow hired to create honey pots and misdirect and they have some room for creativity, etc. Knowing this it still can be inspirational and a useful source of information.


        1. @B. Muller Yes, I’ve had some photography experience. I had a darkroom. One of the cameras I had was an old Leica from my father. It was from around that period. All the cameras I had in those days were manual wind. You could easily take a couple of shots 2 or 3 seconds apart, not 20 seconds as you suggest. Click…flip the lever…Click.

          If you study the photos, you’ll see that what I described is correct. It can’t be attributed to any error in making a copy. It’s not a copy. Not because I say so, but because it’s clear in the photos. And it doesn’t take an expert to see that.

          The planes were flying in formation so their positions relative to each other would not vary much. It’s impossible to tell how far apart in time the images were taken. It could have been a few seconds or tens of seconds or more. We don’t know if these were taken consecutively or if there were several in between.

          If you’re suggesting there was no bombing during the war…my grandmother was German and lived with us. We had curtains she brought from Germany that were full of holes from bomb shrapnel. History is lies agreed upon, but there was definitely real bombing going on.

          You share my doubts? OK, but I don’t have any doubt. These guys are actively working for the other side.


  20. in 3 seconds a falling bomb will make about 30 meters and you only have a couple of pictures left on the film. If you click to fast, you’ll have to reload a new film, etc. Let somebody fall something down from his outstretched hand when you don’t know when and try to catch it with a modern camera. You didn’t react to my question what for should they make such pictures of bombings in the first place? But lets leave it at that. I’m not suggesting there wasn’t any havoc during the wars. I’m simply convinced people back then weren’t that inhuman to kill each other on order as history suggests. Some things may have got out of hand and there was some collateral damage. But mostly it was propaganda not much different to today’s fear porns about cars driven into crowds (idea invented by Stephen King by the way) or some suicide bombers and such. People like to spread what they hear from media. That’s how and why propaganda works. It was the invention of radio which made it possible not the invention of tank or other weapon.


    1. @B. Muller You seem stuck on this idea the photographer was waiting for a chance to catch the bombs falling. Why couldn’t it just be by chance? There are lots of photos and film depicting bombs dropping. Do you think they’re all fake? If some are real, I don’t see the need to fake others.

      Why should they make such pictures? Also a weird question. Some soldiers would have been professional or amateur photographers. There are all kinds of photos from the war. And there were soldiers who’s job it was to take pictures. People like to take pictures. It’s evolved to the point where nearly everyone has a camera with them at all times (in their phones).

      Surely you understand that the PTB are ramping up the chaos and confusion?
      YouTube has been severely censoring truth videos and all these ‘new’ theories are catching on – flat earth, no fuel in jets, no trees, mandala effect, TYCHOS, etc. We have ‘reality’ shows on TV that are not reality. We have the mainstream warning us about ‘fake news’.

      My parents and grandmother lived through the war. Though some things were faked (like Gulf of Tonkin, Holocaust) but war is real. The deaths are real. Yes, often soldiers on both sides would shoot over the heads of the enemy and bombers might be queasy about bombing civilians, but they’re told stories to justify their orders. Like in Palestine, Israeli soldiers are told the ‘terrorists’ hide among the civilian population, so don’t feel bad about killing civilians – those civilians are aiding the enemy.

      It sounds to me like ‘too much information’ has gotten to you. Maybe take a step back, stop researching for a while and contemplate what you have been researching and try to put it all in perspective. Try to separate the wheat from the chaff. Which I know is difficult, especially now when they’re really ramping up the chaff.

      My take is that the PTB figure the conspiracy/truth movement has gone far enough and they want to prevent any significant further spread. So they’re gumming up the field with ever wilder theories to confuse and misdirect truthers, and to make the entire truth movement appear more and more insane to the ‘sheep’.

      In response, we have to be ever more discerning about the information we’re given, regardless of source.

      Though they’re heros to some truthers, MM and SS each took a pair of images they knew were real and tried to pass them off as fake. That speaks volumes.



        ” 1920-1939

        By World War I the airplane had matured in its development to be used for aerial reconnaissance. However, aerial photographs taken from planes were often highly distorted due to shutter speeds being too slow in relationship to the speed of the plane. Toward the end of the war Sherman M. Fairchild developed a camera with the shutter located inside the lens. This design significantly reduced the distortion problem. In addition, the camera’s magazine would prevent uneven spacing. Fairchild also designed an intervalometer that allowed photos to be taken at any interval. Combined these developments made the Fairchild camera the best aerial camera system available (Figure 17). With modifications, the Fairchild camera remained the desired aerial camera system for the next fifty years.
        Like Eastman, Fairchild was born in a small upstate New York town called Oneonta. His father, George W. Fairchild, manufactured time clocks and adding machines. His company along with two others later became IBM and George Fairchild was the company’s first president. He also served for twelve years in the U.S. House of Representatives. In his initial years of developing a camera Fairchild benefited from his father’s wealth and influence.”


      2. Jon, I mostly agree with your assessments of these wars. I don’t believe they were just theater productions. I consider the possibility that the deaths were multiplied, but I definitely cannot tell you by what factor. I also consider the possibility that a lot of areas were mostly evacuated, in order to reduce casualties (After all they need workers after the war). I would also say that the wars were coordinated from both sides/all sides using the “spies” , which were probably messengers from 1 side to another side.

        I also agree about many new conspiracy theories. This is why I gave you that CalcifiedLies link. This is probably connected to time is illusion, our universe is a hologram and similar things. Let the good times roll, since all this is an illusion, no need to resist our masters. Maybe we can also hook to the virtual reality worlds when they become more advance, or modify our bodies the way transhumanists want. Mathis actually talked about many of these issues.

        In a comment above you mentioned Allan. Baby what is you doing? I went to his blog and he talks about the silence on Elon Musk and his project. Very contrived thinking. Again I get the impression that he has some pet theory and wants everybody to look at certain details of a spook project (I got the same impression from his letters to Mathis). Yes, many spook projects are important on many fronts, but is is hard to cover all the related booshit. Most people will even miss the big or the bigger picture. I can point out a few areas that many people don’t touch, but I don’t think that they are frauds because they don’t cover these areas. I don’t say all these things because Allan criticized people that I mostly agree with on many topics. CalcifiedLies is also suspicious of everybody, but he is an example of a person that seems genuine and seems to have good judgement most of the time. CalcifiedLies also seems to see the bigger pictures (or at least tries).


  21. @Calgacus I checked out Calcified and will do so some more. He makes the mistake, IMO, of discrediting people by association. “If Soandso was on Whatsit’s podcast, he must be a shill because Whatsit is a shill.” That doesn’t give me any confidence in his analysis because that is about as shallow as you can get.

    I’m new to Allan’s work.
    He has some automatic yellow flags because of his Hollywood background, but so far nothing he’s said has changed those flags to red for me. He has theories about certain things, but I don’t see him trying to pass them off as fact like MM and SS.

    Anyway, forgive me, but I’m not clear on what your point is. My original point here was that the two photos in question do not appear fake as MM asserts. Have you examined them? What do you think?


    1. Well it seems that everybody derailed from the subject of Tychos. In the end I just mentioned topics that seemed relevant to the larger topic of dealing with alternative info.
      Regarding Calcified, I would recommend his articles on his blog about The Skeleton Key and his article on Homeostasis (he also has a video version) . These articles are about some interesting issues, big picture stuff. These articles go beyond the topic of “this guy is a fraud or a shill”.

      Regarding the photos, I will probably look at them later. In the end these particular photos may not be that relevant (I don’t believe that these 2 photos are among the photos that are considered iconic). What you think about Mathis’ analysis of photos where Hitler, Mussolini or Neville appear. Or maybe the photos of London or Dresden. Rae West and nukelies forum also had some discussions about ww2 photos (the forum is dead, but sometimes Rae adds updates). In the end the case should be made on genealogy (the importance of who, relationships and their motives) + narratives (including anomalies in the narratives) . Of course, paintings and photos should be part of the case analysis.
      Since we talk about photo analysis I wonder if anybody has the book “Photo Fakery: A History of Deception and Manipulation ” by Dino Brugioni. Maybe this is a useful book, but I would expect a lot of misdirection nonetheless.


      1. Agree this comment thread deviates from Tychos, but that isn’t worth much comment anyway.

        I see many of these sites like this; the Cluesforum elevator takes to up to floor three. You can rummage around there all you want and check every millimeter of it, but you’ re not going anywhere else.

        Mathis site takes you up to floor five, and again, after you hang out there for a little while realize floor 5 is where you’re staying. Even the feel of that site now seems stale and we’re rerunning stuff like Modernism, etc… In other words, there is no real attempt at serious speculation. Money is the reason for all this… no way. It’s a tool. albeit a very, very important one to trap all of us.

        Additionally, I don’t think geological research will get you very far. Whoever/whatever is directing this experience for us here, to level of detail that’s occurring, would not allow themselves/itself to be uncovered that way since they own all these channels including Darpanet, which they handed off to us. Those genealogy trees have to be easy to scrub and mess with.

        Mathis is just a more sophisticated trap, but a trap nonetheless. Just my 2 cents.


        1. I believe that it becomes a trap when you are too attached to something or too dogmatic. Also you cannot expect people to be experts on all these areas. All the elements of civilization seem to be affected by corruption. You usually need a solid understanding of a field in order to see the corruption. Nobody has the time to become experts in all these major fields. Also the real skeptic approach is in infancy right now, since the internet is a relatively new thing.

          In the end as outsiders, we will probably never understand the true motives of the elites and the mechanism that moves our civilization. Also Mathis, CC or any other group or person cannot take you to any floor. You have to climb the floors. The best thing another person can do to you is to put signs on the path they traveled. The signs can be a warning or an advice for people that will pass though that place in the future. If the person that put the sign is also an outsider, at best he can point out a few patterns and ask you to consider certain possibilities. Don’t expect the signs to be 100% correct all the time.

          The genealogical research is important since it is about the “who”. In the end Sherlock Holmes must find you is responsible for the crime. The investigation is complete when we also find the motivation (but as I mentioned above, I believe the outsiders will never find the true motivations of these elites). Again don’t expect to find only true information. The beauty is that the anomalies or the broken links are also useful info. The genealogy is usually useful when combined with the narratives or biographies presented. And the interesting thing is that genealogical links can be found. For example just look at the Benveniste family. One member, Richard Ben-Veniste (lawyer), was involved in Watergate, 9/11, Clinton investigations, Nazi and Japanese WW2 booshit and what not. It becomes funny when you see members from elite families involved in all these projects. The funny thing is that people don’t know these names and they don’t pay attention to these names, so they don’t need to hide to many links. In the end it is a useful pattern that allows you to consider certain possibilities. How these things are managed also become more obvious when you have blood relations.


          1. @Calgacus IMO, the ‘who’ is irrelevant in this case. Under no circumstances will they ever be prosecuted by the system they created and own. The only way to ‘defeat’ them is for the masses to ignore them. To stop complying with the system as much as that is possible. But those people will never be punished in the usual ways.

            I think the genealogical info may be interesting, but not particularly useful. As for MM’s genealogical research, I think it’s even more shady than his photo analysis, which is to say it’s just more bullshit. I think he’s just laughing at his followers.


      2. @Calgacus The plane photos are only relevant (to me) because they prove MM is a liar and/or a really shitty photo analyst. I’d vote for ‘liar’.
        I know some war photos have been staged or altered, but not these two.

        I can’t remember much about his analysis of the other photos you mention, and I don’t care, now that I know his analysis is largely bullshit. I think a lot, if not most of his genealogy ‘work’, besides being really boring and hard to follow, is bullshit. Allan has covered that well.


    2. Hey Jon,
      Since Bill Cosby was found guilty, I decided to do some fact-checking on MM’s Cosby “paper.” To keep this comment short I will just point out some things from page 1 only.

      1st MM says of famous people named Hite that “all but (one) are white.” He’s obviously going by the surname list at Wikipedia which actually includes 3 people who are black. He conveniently failed to mention Richard Hite and Robert Hite.

      2nd MM shows in bold that Cosby’s great-grandmother’s name was Anne Rice. Did he do this so that we would subconsciously associate her to the novelist or is he trying to imply that Cosby’s g-grandparents were cousins? Her maiden name was Johnson. Either he’s misdirecting or just being sloppy.

      3rd MM mentions that the Cosby’s link to a Jennings in VA. Miles’ 2nd great-grandmother on his father’s side is named Jennings and they originate in VA. In fact Cosby’s Jennings hail from Hanover, VA and Mathis’ from Henrico VA which are 20 miles apart.

      Does this mean Miles Mathis is related to Bill Cosby?

      On to page two!


      1. Even better, MM bends over backwards to prove that Cosby descends from white people with endless, confusing genealogical links. Still, he never mentions that Cosby’s wife of over 50 years maiden name is Hanks.

        Camille was born Camille Olivia Hanks on March 20, 1944, in Washington D.C., to Guy A. Hanks, Sr. and Catherine C. Hanks (b. 1922). She is the oldest of four children and is a distant cousin of Nancy Hanks Lincoln, mother of United States President Abraham Lincoln. Through Lincoln, she is a **distant cousin of American actor Tom Hanks

        That would have provided MM a perfect excuse to link to his Lincoln paper, but whatever.


        1. From MM’s Cosby article:
          (In 1961, at age 23) he began appearing at the Gaslight in New York City. What? A freshman at Temple is booked at the Gaslight and also toured DC, Chicago, San Francisco, and Las Vegas? Temple is in Philly, so no normal person could manage that. He was appearing on the Tonight Show by 1963 (age 25), as a college sophomore

          Born and raised in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Kevin Hart began his career by winning several amateur comedy competitions at clubs throughout New England, culminating in his first real break in 2001 at the age of 22 when he was cast by Judd Apatow for a role in the TV series Undelcared.

          Miles argument is that Cosby was attending college at the same time. What he fails to mention is that Cosby was studying “Physical Education.” I guess he thinks that talent agents should be more restrained and not give opportunities to comedians while they’re “too fresh.” Perhaps hold them to the same age restriction as the President, 35 or older.

          I could do this all year, but I think everybody gets the point.


        2. @Kevin Starr That genealogy stuff just makes makes my eyelids really, really heavy. And ya, MM really stretches the connections with his ‘alternate spellings’ and such. As Allan has eluded to, if you go back far enough, we’re probably all related.


    3. My knee-jerk reaction was to discount Jon’s assessment over Miles’ out of hand, Jon. So I promptly ignored that reaction and just decided to look at it with a fresh mind, or as fresh as I can after reading all this. Downloaded both photos at as high resolution as I could find (which was crap – only the first pic still exists on Wiki, though Mathis says he got both from there I couldn’t find the second on there, so I screengrabbed it from Miles’ .PDF paper. The second one has better resolution) and dropped them into Photoshop.

      The first thing I noticed was a rather fantastic “liming” of the planes, more in the first pic but also in the second one. Often that’s a tell-tale sign of doctoring but not necessarily, because – you know – limning actually occurs in photography, and in our vision. So in this case, not definitive. A stark black limning would have been more indicative of a paste-up, here.

      The second thing I saw was that the clouds do not match. And then realized the planes’ position did not match either. They are shot from different angles and at slightly different distances or focal lengths. I believe this was what Jon meant, and I made a quick animated .gif to illustrate the situation. Centered on that rear right tail fin area:

      Now there are multiple ways to center and rescale this – BUT, you can’t distort it, if you want to stay accurate. All rescales have to be 2D, scale-locked (Shift-key, in PS) so you don’t distort the original or skew it. We could center it on the wings, or the cockpit or the markings, but no matter how you center it if the scale is correct then this shows that it’s not the same plane photo in each. The same plane, sure, but not the same photo.

      So I think Mathis was off, on that one. He seems much better with people and portraits, obviously due to his expertise on the topic, but a man can’t be a god and get everything right, and I’m a lot better in Photoshop than him. Does that negate his premise on that paper or his accuracy on his hundreds of physics papers or the premises of the rest of his work?

      Not at all. He made a mistake, and was being stubborn, and hasn’t seen that .GIF since I just made it anyway. I think that’s a fairly human and normal thing to do. To me, that’s no indication of spooky business. It’s like a typo only a bit more involved, but doesn’t bear any weight to me on the rest of his body of work.

      It seems like almost everyone who thinks Miles is fake or spooky never bothers to read his 300+ physics papers and get to know the guy the way hardcore readers have. You do yourself a great disservice, if you haven’t read them. Devastating stuff.


      1. You (and Jon) are right about the angle of the photo, they are different and this animation proves it.
        However, the sun rays on the right wing are eerily similar, if not the same.

        It could have been 2 photographers at the same moment from different planes or the same photographer shooting the same plane at different moments (either in photos or as has been suggested and that seems probable stills taken from a film), but no, the photos are not identical.

        That MM claimed that doesn’t destroy his other work though, I have found some sloppy steps in his thinking, but that doesn’t mean we can throw the baby out with the bath water. In general I think he has done far more good than bad in understanding how the perps operate, how the families are linked and how deep and far (back) these psyops go.


  22. @KL I agree MM is a trap, but not a very sophisticated one IMO. Quite transparent, actually. I was having some suspicions early on, but then the little Dresden planes episode left no doubt.


    1. Good work Jon. I think it’s about time for all the little boys and girls to remove their fingers from the dyke and just let it rip. It’s a pointless waste of time and there are so many more interesting thing to discover. There’s really no reason to “limit” yourself any longer.


      1. Ooops! I meant “dike.” That was a classic Freudian slip! But everybody’s fake and gay anyways so it doesn’t really matter, does it?


      2. @Kevin Thanks, I guess? I didn’t do anything!

        To bring it back to TYCHOS – with all the research and posting Simon does, I wonder how he finds time to make a living with his ‘music’. I wonder who his clients are. The only one I know of was connected to the military, if memory serves.

        Anyway, there isn’t much more to say about SS or MM.


          1. @Jared I probably skimmed through a couple of his physics papers. I’ve always been a science/sci-fi buff, but I don’t understand physics much beyond Newton. That said, I though his Pi = 4 was crap.

            I don’t believe Miles is one person. I basically agree with Allan’s view on that, but came to the same conclusion long before discovering Allan’s work.

            I considered the possibility that he was just mistaken and his ego wouldn’t let him admit it. Even if that’s the case, and I don’t believe it is, he’s a write-off as far as I’m concerned. Sure, he has some good info, but we all know that’s how paid shills operate, so that doesn’t excuse him. If his ego gets in the way then he’s unreliable.

            I’m not quick to call anyone a shill. Like I said, I was a fan, got suspicious, and then the planes sealed it. Anyone who can’t admit they’re wrong in the face of undeniable evidence doesn’t deserve to be known as a truth teller.
            BTW, anyone else reading this – would you agree MM’s guest writers sound just like him? Or is it my imagination? I’m no expert linguist, but I DID catch another shill assuming false identities on YT comments, sheerly by their writing style.

            Thanks for confirming what I pointed out in the plane pics. B. Muller, take note.


          2. Since you claim to be a science guy but then blatantly ignore 300+ papers on the topic, we can go ahead and discount your opinion about Mathis. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about and just love hearing yourself talk.

            Yes, we agreed that Mathis was wrong on one thing. It’s also telling that you chose that one thing to babble on about, instead of just doing what I did – the real work. It took me about 3 minutes to make that .GIF. Which indicates that you don’t even own Photoshop, which tells us that you know next to nothing about the topic. You got lucky on one single point – good for you.

            But since you can’t even read his body of work, any analysis you have on the guy is fatally flawed. You’re just straw-manning.


            1. @Jared I’m not basing my opinion that MM is a fraud on his science, art, or the fact he made one (glaring) mistake. The only reason I went on about the mistake is because of B. Muller.

              I simply don’t know enough about physics or art to judge. As I explained, the bottom line for me is that he didn’t own up to his mistake. (if it was a mistake and not intentional) So whether he’s a fraud or just a loveable egomanic, that one trait discredits him in my mind.

              If he won’t admit his error on that one small point, what else is he wrong about that he won’t admit? You think those 2 photos are the only mistake he’s made? Other researchers are grateful when errors are pointed out. They acknowledge the error and make corrections.

              I didn’t need to go to the trouble you did to see that the photos were genuine. It was self-evident. I’m no expert at photo analysis.


      3. What other kinds of interesting things would you share with the group to discover, Kevin? Mayhaps you could link us to hundreds of breakthroughs in science, physics, geology, mathematics, astrophysics, and botany all with one link?


        1. Jon, as I said previously I no longer think it is technically not possible to make such pictures. They could have simply film it and then took best pictures out of a movie. With a photo camera it would be impossible but nit with a film camera. There are movies showing bombings. I think, those movies don’t show real bombings. I don’t think they would film killings even the killings of their enemies. They don’t film executions of mass murderers either, right? Of course there aren’t any real mass murderers. I don’t even think the death penalty is a real thing today. We don’t do such things anymore and maybe never did. As for the bombing of Dresden there are many confusing informations. For instance totally different death tolls. This creates confusion. There are no good quality pictures either. There are many private high quality pictures of Hitler. So why not from bombed Dresden? People in bunkers can’t see what happens outside. That’s how they did it back then. And that’s how they fake all the terror attacks today. Nobody see it really happen except hired crisis actors.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. @B. Muller Unless you can show some evidence that the cameras available at the time couldn’t manually advance the film with the flip of a lever, I have to say you’re wrong that it couldn’t have been a photo camera. But you’re right, it could have been 2 frames from a movie. In either case, the images are genuine and M should have easily spotted that.

            You don’t think they’d film a real bombing. OK, but that doesn’t make it so. Yes, we’ve been lied to about almost everything, but one reason those lies have endured is because they contain some truth.

            Whether the bombing films are real or fake, as long as people believed they are real, what’s the difference? The effect is the exactly the same. Since there were real bombings occurring that could be filmed, there would be no reason to waste resources faking it.


          2. Jon, I they may have thrown some bombs over cities, we still find bombs in Germany occasionally when we dig deep enough. But at the same time there was a system of bunkers everywhere and people got warned and could hide in time. What I think is, those things were made to create the effect of fear, to scare the masses on both sides. And they took great care to avoid killing. People may have got killed occasionally, but not in the numbers we are being told. This is propaganda. I’m convinced both sides of the World War worked together all the time. So there was no real enemy. Hence no need for killing. Only need for scary events. They don’t film real killings. Not today and not back then. On the second thought, I just looked at the pictures of a recent bomb find in Frankfurt. Just google. This is supposed to be a 250 kilo bomb. How many such bombs could they fly over and how did they handle a 250 kilo heavy piece of metal on an airplane? I mean you have to have a magic bolt the kind space shuttles were connected to their rockets.


  23. oh, I was maybe to fast with the pictures. There was another bomb find with 1.4 tons of explosives last year. The bomb itself must have been much heavier. So how do you handle such bombs on an airplane? Do you roll them to the open crate? Or magic bolt again? And what should be the purpose of creating such big bombs? Won’t be many smaller bombs more effective? It’s not like you can precisely drop this thing on something. Makes no sense to me. You?


  24. Things are getting a little personal here. Two notes – I will close this comment thread here after you all get your last licks in. Before it went south on us, I thought it was quite interesting. I find BM’s comments to resonate with my world view. I don’t think there is any other purpose for income taxes than to keep our ability to build a nest egg in check. They do not like independently wealthy citizens. I seriously doubt that the rulers of the planet depend on the currency system they created for us to pay their bills.

    And two, Gaia has been in purgatory and would have relished this discussion, but he was banned – I should have let him back in long ago and will do so this moment. Initial bans are supposed to be for one week only.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @Allan
      Gee, I thought it was relatively civilized.
      I think BM has gone a bit overboard believing everything is fake, though that’s not hard to do. That’s what the perps want. From what I’ve read of your work, you seem to be a little more grounded in reality and receptive to simple logic.
      I’ve said my piece so no more licks from me.


    2. Thank you for that stroke of heart, Mark, I hope you enjoyed your short holidays, I did enjoy mine from PoM.

      In the meantime the discussion about “TYCHOS” has developed “quite a bit”… You may or may not have read it at Fakeologist, for those who can stomach it:

      I have read the full book and had some serious comments, questions and doubts about quite some claims put forward. As you can see those were responded to with “two-faced clown”, “pretty stupid”, “cognitive unable” and the best-of-the-best “bipolar imbecile”.

      I wonder if Prof. Dr. Shack uses such language to the imaginary Vittorio, an astronomer from Bologna University who looks at his work and challenges it way better than I could do. If he does, he will end up with a very small circle of yes-and-amen nodding donkeys, and there will be no “peaceful Tychonic Revolution”, as he aspires to in his book and on Cluesforum…

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The entire thing is just a terrible “black hole”. Not only does his “work” not match experiment or data, it doesn’t even make sense from the start. I haven’t and won’t read his book or whatever, but his inability to answer the most basic, fundamental questions (from myself, or from you) shows us that he’s just blathering. It’s one of those negative attention things, with a bit of Modernism thrown in. “Anything counts” as science, to those people. They don’t care how wrong they are.

        I’d love to see Shack try to predict anything, but my guess is he doesn’t even know what a prediction is, at this point. He’s actually worse than the mainstream because he doesn’t seem intelligent enough to even know he’s wrong. It’s just fiction.


  25. Hello all 🙂 How are you fellow thinkers? Hopefully healthy & happy.

    I think you are intelligent enough to understand Simon’s Tychos model.
    Also I think you would honestly admit if a model-data conflict were found.
    And so, here I will endeavor to explain the Tychos-Parallax conflict I found:

    I think you will enjoy pondering the existence of this Tychos-Parallax conflict.
    If you agree, feel free to share – since Simon banned me for discovering this.
    If you can find any illogic in my sentences or visuals, please do let me know.



    1. I do not understand the Tychos, and am not going to worry about it. Since it comes from Shack, I am naturally skeptical, but I am also leery, just as with the guy in Taos, of some dude who has figured out the questions of the ages, as if such people only come along once a century, and we now have two!


      1. both geniuses do similar things, they reinterpret some theoretical ideas invented by some theorists which have no representation in reality. For instance, there still is no observable phenomenon which the relativity theory could explain. All given examples, like bending light from stars by gravity, time dilation, etc. are only claimed by the inventors and propagators of this theoretical ideas. Those things cannot be observed by those not involved. In comparison normally there first is an observable phenomenon which rises questions (why are things always falling down?). Then there is a theory trying to explain this phenomenon (a force called gravity which is created by huge masses draws them down). Never the other way round. When the relativity theory was invented, there wasn’t any appropriate observable phenomenon and there still isn’t. Tychos reinterprets some astronomical details only NASA and their associates claim to observe and measure. For instance that Sirius (the brightest star on the northern sky, a bit left down from the Orion constellation) is a double star, which cannot be normally observed because one is very bright and the other relatively dark and close to the bright one. If you look through a telescope you will only see the bright star. There is no way to observe the other dark one or to photograph it because the bright one will always disturb any observation. Except you work for NASA and such.


        1. I am just getting into this business and having fun, but the business of science is to simplify and illuminate. Or should be. Astrophysics, cosmology and quantum mechanics have done the opposite, mystifying with relativity and hidden particles and dark matter and black holes, none of which are observable. They have made their own religion.


          1. If your point is that Shack is a spook, I agree. if your point is that he, like the MMG, are to be taken seriously and debated as an alternative reality, I got better things to do. They are spinning us, nothing more.


          2. How much have you read of and looked into the TYCHOS, Mark.

            How can you claim “They are spinning us, nothing more.” without even taking that step.

            I have done that with your favorite Velikovsky. Are you at the same level with Simon’s TYCHOS.

            The point is that it is a predictive, solid model. And that by definition deserves attention. And the work that is put into it too.

            If Simon can unequivocally prove that stellar parallax is useless and explain it satisfactorily in a TYCHOS 2.0 book, he takes away all my objections to the solidity of his model.

            Which is a grand feat by itself, but his first publication on “the impossibility to measure stellar parallax because of X, Y and Z” without using his TYCHOS, just sec why stellar parallax is useless by itself should be the real ice breaker.

            I doubt his scientific skills and his publication skills are below horrible, but with a good team of professional writers, scientists who do the same level of scrutiny as Observer and me, both coming from a completely different perspective, there is a lot of potential value in the TYCHOS.

            Test it yourself.



Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s