by K. Starr or Kevin S.(whatever)
Technically, this is a rebuttal to a reply by the character known as Miles Mathis regarding my article titled “Miles Mathis: Origins of an Enigma.” The following paragraph is how he opened his response.
This should be fun. It is a reply to the new writer from Langley (or wherever) claiming to be Kevin Starr. His blitz on me does call for a response. I had asked for a bigger kitten to be sent in, and they have finally hired a pro. He does quite a job, I have to admit, and if I didn’t know me and my own life, I might almost fall for this myself. I would say he rises to about the level of tomcat, but I had asked for a lion, so I guess they will have to shell out a few more bucks for the next project.
NOTE: From this point forward, I will be using the initials MMC to indicate the “Miles Mathis Committee,” “Miles Mathis Controllers,” “Miles Mathis Cult,” etc.
Let’s start off with some quick bullet points to refute their inaccuracies in the opening paragraph:
- This is not fun
- I am not a “new” writer
- I am not from Langley (but I am from wherever)
- I don’t claim to be Kevin Starr. I am Kevin Starr*
- I am not a pro (but thanks for the nice compliment)
- I am not a tomcat (I’m a dog person)
- I was (sadly) not paid for this “project” and don’t expect to be for the next so-called “project.”
It appears that the “pro” remark was just a backhanded compliment. A pro like me should have seen that coming. The MMC took back their compliment by denigrating my previous contributions to their site claiming the original Kevin couldn’t do the same level of work. Therefore, they designate the author of Origins of an Enigma with the title Kevin2. It couldn’t be possible that I am getting better with practice, could it? As for the name change from Kevin S. to K. Starr? It separates my work on POM from what I did on the MMC site.
Next, they say that Mark Tokarski didn’t write my article because it is beyond him. That’s just a cheap shot. Mark is an accomplished writer who is responsible for the bulk of the output on POM, and readers continue to come back for more day after day. I’ve seen the numbers, and they are impressive. The MMC also accuse Mark of “running a project,” but I remember Mark handling the initial attack by the MMC with restraint and class and since that time he has promoted them many times, even calling them iconoclasts. But since Mr. T is open-minded to opinions which clash with how the they view themselves, he’s now apparently out to get them. As usual, the world revolves around the MMC.
They’re also hung up about my choice of the photo under the title. I would think such brilliant mathematicians could put 2 and 2 together and deduce that since the title was “Origins of an Enigma,” I merely posted the youngest photo that I could locate. The MMC has pointed out to us how attractive they think Miles is ad nauseam, so what would I gain by trying to out him as a dorky teenager. Most people are dorky at that age. They are also outraged by my suggestion that the Miles Mathis character may be gay. I don’t care if he is or not. But since they accused Mel Gibson, a father of nine children, of being gay, it didn’t seem like THAT much of a stretch to come to the same conclusion regarding their main character.
Moving along, we’re only on page two, and already the MMC has made the strategic decision to “work back” over my article. Do you know why they employed this tactic? It’s because they know that I opened with my most persuasive evidence. They are also counting on the fact that many people will only read the title and maybe the first half of the article before believing that they get the gist and move on. Most people are busy and don’t have time to sit around petting kittens.
In the middle of page three, we get the first howler.
“He (Kevin) had access to our (Miles and Mary) yearbook pics – which indicates to me we are dealing with Intel here – but conveniently couldn’t access her actual jobs or income. Which should make you ask, “When did Kevin become such an ace researcher, with paid access to every site on the web?” Amazing, isn’t it, that once he left my site he suddenly became a polished pro, with access to information no normal person would have, and bags of cash for entrance fees.”
Once again, thanks for the kind compliments, but they’re undeserving. So, I’m Intel because I found two yearbook pictures on the internet? And I’m a polished pro, beyond normal people, with bags of cash? Wow, I thought the MMC had more respect for their reader’s intelligence. I’m probably going against Intel protocol here, but 90% of the genealogical records in my article came from Ancestry.com. The secret’s out. Just google “Ancestry Company Facts,” and you will see without even clicking the link that they have more than 20 billion (with a B) records that have been added over the past two decades. But brace yourself, because there is a hefty monthly “entrance fee” of $19.99. To get over that monumental hurdle, I was forced to take out a second mortgage and hit up friends and family for loans. I figure if I give them each twenty-five cents every year, I’ll have that puppy paid off in about twelve years. It should perturb the people who “feed the web kitty” that their idol isn’t willing to pony up twenty bucks for the cause of truth research.
Regarding Mary’s jobs or income, I didn’t even try to find that information since the article wasn’t about her, just her relationship to the Miles character. The MMC accuse me of faking her yearbook photo because it lists the wrong birthdate (1962 instead of 1963), so let me walk you through “my polished pro process.” At Ancestry.com, I went to “Search” and entered her first and last name, the birthdate of 1963, and Texas as the location and hit the “Search” button and voila.
The MMC then carry on for maybe two more pages crying poor, poor, Miles. They throw around a lot of personal “facts” and family anecdotes that can’t be verified, even by a “polished pro” like myself. “Miles” even remembers how much he paid for rent 30 years ago. Why should we believe any of this after the lies we were just fed? This section of their rebuttal concludes with what appears to be a “live and let live” statement. But again, they pull the rug by accusing me of harboring feelings of “penis envy.” How does this work? I think they are suggesting that even though I’m a man, I don’t have a penis, or maybe it’s so small that I can’t find it, so I envy other men. But since I am attracted to women, there is the possibility that I am a lesbian and haven’t realized it yet. Perhaps the Miles character and I met at Bryn Mawr in the 80’s, and I’ve forgotten.
Then they focus again on the Mary Streetman section. Note…how…deliberately… we…are…working…back. They pick on my two mentions of numerology saying that they don’t see how it is pertinent. Then how is the MMC’s many references to numerology in their own “papers” pertinent? As an example, let’s go back and read the first paragraph of “The Gunfight at the O.K. Corral Never Happened.”
Funny story how I got into this one. I was watching the original Star Trek, season 3, episode “The Spectre of the Gun.” They showed a period poster on the wall, which stated the Gunfight in Tombstone was on October 26, 1881 (Miles and Mary were married on October 8, 1988.) The numerology there alerted me to the possibility this event was a fake. Note all the eights: October means eighth month, 2+6=8, and then the year. More research confirmed it.
I get accused of lying about Mathis’ 2nd great-grandmother Mary Jane French. “He (Kevin) says that marriage index is listing her maiden name as Mary Jane Hill, but if you look at it you see that it isn’t. He is just lying right to your face. Nothing there indicates that is her maiden name.” Is that right? This clipping was taken directly from my article:
I purposely snipped it like that because it shows the names of the couples above and below. As we can see, John W. Coburn’s bride was named Elizabeth McKinney and Wm. S. Thomas was marrying Sarah Stocton. Let’s zoom out on this document.
You could zoom out into infinity, but it wouldn’t alter the fact that Elijah and Mary Jane share the same surname as opposed to everybody else on that list. So now who’s the one lying to your face?
Nearly 80% of the way into this article, the MMC decide to confront my most robust evidence FINALLY. Straight away, the Mathis character admits that he couldn’t find the information about the Wernes on his own and he says that he is happy that I found it for him. Do I need to point out the absurdity of this? But happiness soon turns to irritation as he accuses me of not proving a genealogical link of the Werne’s to Daniel Boone. To be clear, I stated that his ancestors must have been prominent citizens to have their portraits displayed in Daniels Boone’s home. At no time did I ever attempt to link them in a familial sense. The MMC’s deceptive tactics are so transparent that it’s almost laughable.
The next paragraph utilizes the classic bait and switch technique.
These Wernes were freemasons and silversmiths, and I agree they may have been Jewish. So, if these links hold up, it looks like I may have to switch my admission from Moses to these Wernes. Instead of a great-grandfather on my mother’s father’s side, I might possibly have a rich Jewish 3g-grandfather on my father’s mother’s mother’s side. Is that better or worse? I guess it depends on whether you are Jewish or not. If you aren’t Jewish, you would probably say it is better.
So according to the MMC, it’s either/or. It couldn’t be possible that the Miles Mathis character is Jewish on BOTH sides of his family, could it? Extensive Jewish ancestry wouldn’t be an issue if the MMC didn’t attempt to out EVERYBODY as Jewish. This practice is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. And it begs the question, “Why do they do that?”
The MMC next do a genealogical “drive-by” stating that the names Chase and McCormick go nowhere. The lack of substantive links is undeniably true. It is true because both names are so damning that they needed to be scrubbed. And I hope the readers can see the integrity in my approach since I didn’t attempt to “push” the issue. I even stated that there are people who build family trees on Ancestry.com that DO connect the MM character to the McCormick family DIRECTLY. I couldn’t find the necessary death/birth/marriage certificate to confirm the connection, and I moved on. I also found a Clinton in the MM character’s maternal line that some people connect to Bill Clinton’s step-father.
They mention the picture of the old house that I included calling it a “shack.” Yes, it looks shabby. Considering that it’s now over 300 years old, you’d think it would have either been demolished or fallen under its weight. It must be essential to someone, and the reason is that it’s the oldest house in Ocean, New Jersey and it was built by the MM character’s ancestors. It has its own Wikipedia page.
He (Kevin) shows some distant possible ancestors who were Quakers, but since that was more than 300 years ago, and 9 generations, it would be hard for them to be controlling me now, wouldn’t it?
I wonder what percentage of the entire MMC catalog that statement invalidates since they frequently travel even further back into the genealogies of their targets. Speaking of invalidation, that is the exact tactic that they attempt next, claiming that because I use no links or footnotes the information can’t be confirmed. They couldn’t find the info, not because they’re unwilling to spend twenty dollars at Ancestry.com, but because I (Kevin) and my “psyop team” manufactured the connections. Oy vey!
That is the entire argument against my most persuasive evidence. Nothing about the Huguenot links, or anything related to royalty. No opinion on grandpa Alexander, the mysterious merchant, and his millions in assets? What about all those names linking the MM character to the peerage. Or his Quaker grandfather who changed the name from Matthews to Mathis. They seemed interested in the architecture that I presented by calling it a “shack.” How’s about those mansions, huh?
No, instead they resort to labeling me a flat-earther. You just got to laugh…or cry.
Long gone are those happy days when the MMC’s main character almost seemed cool. I am so over this “show.”
*I have been Kevin Starr since 2013, and that name suits me better than the utilitarian nomenclature which is connected to my Tax ID number.